Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

INDEPENDENT CHAPEL MAWDSLEY STREET BOLTON BILL [Lords]

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

West Africa (Scientific Research)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what are his plans to aid Commonwealth West African Governments requiring assistance in scientific research.

The Secretary for Technical Co-operation (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Her Majesty's Government have done much to foster scientific research in West Africa. Under technical assistance arrangements we can continue to help by means of supplying experts, training facilities and the provision of scientific equipment. The initiative for applying for this help rests with the independent Governments concerned, but my Department will respond wherever possible.

Mr. Tilney: May I ask my right hon. Friend what initiative has been shown? Are the West African Governments working together; if not, what has he done about it?

Mr. Vosper: I share what I believe to be my hon. Friend's apprehensions about research in West Africa. Discussions are going on at the present time, and I hope that some initiative will be taken as a result of them.

Overseas Civil Servants, West Africa (Pensions)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether he will now make a further statement concerning the retirement of pensionable staff of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service employed inter-territorially in West Africa.

Mr. Vosper: While 1 recognise the urgency of the matter, I am afraid that I am not yet able to add to the reply 1 gave my hon. Friend on 27th February. Discussions are now taking place in West Africa, and I am sure it would be better to await their outcome.

Mr. Tilney: Am I not right in thinking that the East African research specialists, whose case came up much later than that of the West African research specialists, have been dealt with long ago? Is not this a very bad advertisement for those who are thinking of volunteering for service in West Africa?

Mr. Vosper: My hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that the East African problem has been brought to a successful conclusion. It is because there is no agreement in West Africa that this problem, the urgency of which I recognise, arises. I am hopeful that it will be settled satisfactorily.

Teachers

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government with the scheme, agreed at the Commonwealth Education Conference at Oxford in 1959, to recruit 400 teachers over a period of five years for key posts overseas.

Mr. Vosper: The Conference recommended that efforts should be made to fill key posts. Britain did not undertake to recruit for any particular number of posts: she merely announced, after the Conference, her willingness to subsidise up to 400 such posts. So far upwards of 200 applications from overseas for such assistance have been dealt with and 147 have been approved. Another 70 have recently come in and are being examined. I understand that only 19 of these posts have been filled. My Department can recruit for these


posts only when it is invited to do so. So far we have been asked to recruit for 27 posts and have filled five.

Mr. Thomson: Is not that an extremely disappointing Answer after a number of years of effort? Will not the Minister consider going before the nation, through the Press, radio and television, to try to arouse a much greater response from teachers in this country than we have had so far? Is it not true that the Americans are doing very much better than we are in this respect?

Mr. Vosper: I think a point arises, not from the machinery provided by Her Majesty's Government, but from lack of response in the filling of posts. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education initiated a campaign in November last year, but I must admit that the results were disappointing. We must consider the situation in the light of today.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Which does my right hon. Friend think the more important—filling posts in rural areas where there is a great shortage of teachers, or sending teachers overseas?

Mr. Vosper: I do not regard these two considerations as being competitive. I think we can do both. The requirement for overseas is modest, and I think we can meet it without harming my hon. Friend's interests.

Law Textbooks (West Africa)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what arrangements he has to facilitate the sale of, and access to, law textbooks in West Africa.

Mr. Vosper: The sale to West Africa of law textbooks, as of other kinds, takes place under normal trade arrangements. British Council libraries there provide access to law books. The British Council has also been helping other local libraries, both by capital grants for development, and by presentation of books.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still a great scarcity of these books in West Africa? Whatever may be his opinions as to the depth of the roots struck in West Africa by Parliamentary democracy on the Western pattern, is he aware of

the very deep respect in which the common law of Britain and the British judicial system is held? Would it not be desirable to fulfil the real needs of West Africa for these books?

Mr. Vosper: I think that I can accept that, but with one exception I do not know of any outstanding demand for law books from West African countries. I will consider anything that the hon. Member likes to send me in respect of this.

Mr. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this question further? Will he consider whether some law books might come under the Government's own cheap university textbook scheme and be extended to West Africa?

Mr. Vosper: As I told the hon. Member last week, the cheap textbooks scheme does not extend to West Africa. If it is so extended, I will, of course, consider the question of including law books.

Somali Republic (Educational Assistance)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what educational assistance he is giving to the Somali Republic in regard to both the provision of scholarships in the United Kingdom and help with teachers and textbooks inside the Somali Republic.

Mr. Vosper: Apart from contributions to the Somali Exchequer by the British Government, my Department has, in 1962–63, offered two scholarships for teacher-training, three for technical education, and one for a course at the British Broadcasting Corporation, all tenable in the United Kingdom. An offer has been made to provide and meet the cost of an adviser to help with adult education in the Somali Republic. In addition, the British Council provides 13 scholarships and five teachers of English, supports two libraries, and provides textbooks.

Mr. Thomson: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he agree that our responsibilities in relation to the Somali Republic are particularly important? Is he aware that there is a very big Communist effort in that country? Is he further aware that the


Minister of Education, Mr. Egal Mohammed, is doing his best to make English the language of instruction there, and that there is a real thirst for textbooks? Will he try to do more to help this country, because of our special responsibilities in regard to it?

Mr. Vosper: I will certainly take note of what the hon. Member says. The Somali Republic cannot benefit under the special Commonwealth assistance plans and, therefore, must be dealt with in other ways. Any reasonable request will receive very favourable consideration.

Mr. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Somali Republic includes a territory for which we were directly responsible for many years, and that it therefore ought to have special sympathy from this House, even though it is not now formally part of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Vosper: I am anxious to be helpful here. Additional financial assistance is provided from the Exchequer Fund. I will certainly take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. John Hall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the number of scholarships made available is limited by the number of suitable applicants for such scholarships?

Mr. Vosper: I should require notice of that question.

Low-priced Books

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what progress has been made, in countries other than Africa, with the scheme for selling low-priced books overseas.

Mr. Vosper: We are making steady progress, and 670,000 copies of low-priced books have now been printed, including 350,000 copies of university textbooks. Over half a million more books, including nearly 200,000 more university textbooks, are in production. In all, 65 titles are involved. The countries concerned were listed in the Reply given to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 9th February.

Mr. Mayhew: I welcome the fact that progress is now being made, but can

the number of countries be extended? It is still very limited.

Mr. Vosper: The low-price books are available now in 15 countries and the university textbooks in five countries. I told the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) that we would consider whether the scheme should be extended to Africa. The initial requirement is to make the scheme thoroughly successful in the countries where it now operates.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can my right hon. Friend say what the cost is to the Exchequer?

Mr. Vosper: I cannot give an accurate answer, but it is in excess of £1 million.

Mr. Mayhew: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the scheme will not be cut as a result of the cuts in the overseas information services?

Mr. Vosper: No alteration in the scheme has been made or is proposed in respect of recent cuts.

NATIONAL FINANCE

House Purchase (Mortgage Interest Rates)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the changed Bank Rate has affected the cost of purchasing a house for owner occupation through building societies; and whether he will take powers to control mortgage interest rates for house purchase.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): No, Sir, since the rate of interest on mortgages must remain a matter for settlement between a society and its borrowers. There has been no change in the rate since the recent reductions in Bank Rate.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer means that interest rates have a higher priority than homes for the people? Does not he realise that if a would-be house purchaser borrows £2,500 for ten years the interest rates amount to £1,063, and that if he borrows it for fifteen years at the same figure he pays £1,625 in interest rates? In view of the large number of people


waiting for homes, will not the hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of new legislation to control these interest rates?

Sir E. Boyle: My answer meant exactly what it said. The last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question shows very clearly that it would not make economic sense to isolate this part of the field and insulate it from the Government's general credit policy.

Sir C. Osborne: Why cannot we have a 4 per cent. Bank Rate to help the people who are trying to buy their houses?

Sir E. Boyle: It is always nice to hear my hon. Friend. That supplementary question ranges rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Economic Secretary ask the building societies why it is that they do not follow the general rule that what goes up must come down?

Sir E. Boyle: It may have escaped the hon. Member's notice that the Building Societies Association recommended, as long ago as 2nd June, 1961, that member societies should raise their rates—and that was well before the Bank Rate was raised. The rates charged on mortgages depend not so much on the prevailing Bank Rate as on interest rates in general. The fact that the demand for these mortgages is so high must have some effect on the interest rates. That is only economic sense.

Long-term Projects

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his failure to keep the annual increase in Government estimates to 2½ per cent. in real terms, he will refuse to authorise further long-term projects entailing rising annual costs and so limiting his control over annual estimates.

Sir E. Boyle: Some long-term projects must be authorised, even though they entail higher costs in later years. I think it will be better to exercise control over future expenditure by the methods recommended in the recent report of the Plowden Committee.

Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a growing impression that

the Chancellor is, to a certain extent, losing control over his Budget by authorising these long-term projects, and that many of us feel that the control of Government expenditure is extremely important?

Sir E. Boyle: I would ask my hon. Friend to look again at the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary when we discussed this matter in January. He showed clearly the Government's long-term policy in this matter. This is too wide an issue to debate at Question Time.

Government Research Scientists

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of those in Governmental employ engaged on research are working in England and Wales; and how many are working in Scotland; and what were the comparable figures in 1950 and 1955.

Sir E. Boyle: In 1960, 1955 and 1950, scientists in Government employment in England and Wales were 3,235, 2,903 and 3,303, and the comparable figures for Scotland were 172, 145 and 109. These figures relate to members of the scientific officer class who are mainly concerned with scientific research and its direction.

Mr. Hamilton: Do not those figures reveal the fact that Scotland is getting very much less than its fair share of employees in Government research establishments? Will not he take steps to see that more of these establishments are set up in Scotland, in view of the fact that it already has more than double the national percentage rate of unemployment?

Sir E. Boyle: I thought it common ground among all shades of political thought that scientific research does not recognise national boundaries. Research cannot be parcelled out as the hon. Member suggests in his supplementary question.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if growing points for industry are to be established it is most important that research should be situated near those growing points? Is he also aware that considerable numbers of scientists have to be exported from


Scotland in order to supply the needs of English scientific research? Would it not be sensible to bring the research institutions to the place where the scientists are being trained?

Sir E. Boyle: It is true that where problems are of particular Scottish concern the relevant research should be centred in Scotland—and, in fact, this happens. Herring research is going on at the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, and work on improving seed potato crops is going on at East Craigs—so the picture is not as black as the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) suggests.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Member say whether there is any immediate prospect of increased numbers of this type of establishment being set up in Scotland, in view of the fact that the Government admit the deteriorating employment situation there, and also in view of the fact—as my right hon. Friend has pointed out—that incoming industry will look for this kind of research establishment in Scotland? Will not he take further steps to see that this is done?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take note of all the points raised this afternoon. Perhaps I may give one more example of Scottish research. There is also the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride. It is not quite such a gloomy matter as hon. Members opposite have suggested.

East Ham Borough Council (Letter)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the recent letter from the East Ham Borough Council about the effect of high fuel oil taxes on fares paid by the travelling public, and the need for tax remission in this field.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend has acknowledged the Council's letter and noted their views. I cannot, of course, say anything further at this time of year.

Mr. Prentice: Nevertheless, would the hon. Gentleman consider telling his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that it would be a very good idea to reduce this tax burden in next week's

Budget, bearing in mind the unfair effects on the travelling public who have to pay higher fares and on workers in the passenger transport industry who have been suffering a decline in their earnings as compared with others?

Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly draw the hon. Member's supplementary question to the notice of the Chancellor.

Mr. A. Lewis: The Government have been claiming for eleven years that they have been reducing the cost of living but have not succeeded very much over those eleven years. Is not this one way in which they could reduce the cost of living?

Sir E. Boyle: I can only make the comment that no doubt opportunities will shortly arise when the hon. Member may debate this matter.

National Economic Development Council

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measure of experience of the agriculture industry is possessed by the members of the National Economic Development Council.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. Henry Brooke): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Clive Bossom) on 12th March.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave concern in the biggest of our industries that none of its leaders is on this Council, although it has the best record of labour relations and has done a great deal to reduce imports by increasing efficiency? Will he not ask the Chancellor to look at this matter again and to incorporate someone on the Council with a knowledge of the industry?

Mr. Brooke: The problem facing my right hon. and learned Friend was that if he had followed the road of direct representation of all important industries there would have been so many claims that it would have been difficult to keep the Council to a reasonably small size. He has discussed the matter personally with the President of the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would not the Chief Secretary agree that some of the employers already appointed are part-time farmers'?

Mr. Brooke: Whatever they are, J think they were an excellent choice.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman say which member of the National Economic Development Council is an authority on milk?

Mr. Brooke: I should require notice of that question.

National Theatre

Mr. Driberg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now reviewed the proposal for a National Theatre on the South Bank; if, while encouraging all concerned with this project to proceed with it as rapidly as possible, he will endeavour also to secure the preservation of the Sadler's Wells Theatre in Rosebery Avenue as a popular-price theatre serving important parts of north and central London: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest proposals he has received from the Joint Council of the National Theatre: and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: I am not yet ready to make a statement on this matter.

Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say roughly when he will be ready to make a statement? Will he bear in mind that it is a bit unfair to make the major project, which is widely supported, conditional on the destruction of this much-loved theatre in north London?

Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Member knows, there are problems about Sadler's Wells. I hope it will be possible to make a definite statement within the next few weeks.

Mr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the members of the Joint Council of the National Theatre that they should not let their individual jealousies and prejudices for one body or another interfere with the main project, which is the building of a National Theatre?

Mr. Brooke: I hope there will be no jealousies in this matter or, if there are, that they will not prevail. The Government are anxious to reach a right conclusion on this and hope to make a statement before very long.

Iron and Steel Industry

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the current total inventory value of present holdings by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in the iron and steel industry, compared with the total of £364 million for all investments and obligations on 13th July, 1953, and the comparable figure of £199 million on 30th September, 1960; by how much the figure has diminished since that latter date; and what part, ad valorem and percentum, of present Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency holdings are represented by the current aggregate inventory value of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, shortly to be denationalised, including loans under the statute of 1960.

Mr. Brooke: Between 30th September, 1960, and 31st March, 1962, the book value of the Agency's investments and obligations fell by £53·7 million. They now amount to £145·6 million, of which Richard Thomas and Baldwins accounts for £61·6 million, or 42·3 per cent. The company has in addition borrowed £67·3 million from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on his assumption about the date of sale of this company.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend forgotten that the Conservative Party in four successful General Elections has undertaken to denationalise this industry and that has been repeated by Treasury Ministers in 1960 and 1961? Does he not realise that I should feel very queasy, as no doubt he would be in Hampstead and as the Chancellor would in the Wirral, facing the electorate with a charge of political infidelity? Will my right hon. Friend give a clear and unequivocal assurance that it is the intention of the Conservative Party to complete denationalisation within the next eighteen months and before the next General Election?

Mr. Brooke: Like my hon. Friend, I forget nothing, but I cannot make any


comment on his consciousness of infidelity. Neither can I add anything to the admirable statements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made on this subject during the last eighteen months.

Mr. Callaghan: Before the Minister accepts his hon. Friend's invitation to commit suicide, will he reflect on the fact that over £100 million of public money is invested in this profitable and efficient publicly-owned undertaking, and it may be that because of the Government's apparent spite and prejudice in wanting to get rid of it the electors are in revolt against the Government at the moment?

Mr. Brooke: There is no spite or prejudice in the Government's attitude, nor are there any signs that the electorate is anxious for further nationalisation.

Mr. M. Foot: Will the Minister recognise that in this particular instance an example of political infidelity on his part would mark a reversion to virtue and, therefore, be welcomed? Although he says he cannot make any comment on this matter, will he confirm or deny that his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, made a statement in a semi-secret hide-out of the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with that matter some time ago. As for political infidelity, I must leave that to the hon. Member.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory Answer, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise this question on the Adjournment on 16th April, with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot).

Independent Television Authority

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what approval has been given by the Treasury in the last five years, under Sections 13 and 14 of the Television Act, 1954, to application of excess funds of the Independent Television Authority; what have been the aggregate sums repatriated to the Exchequer; what consent has been given

by the Treasury to advances on capital account under Section 12 of the Act in respect of the new Independent Television Authority London headquarters in Brompton Road; and if he will make a statement.

Sir E. Boyle: In the last five years, approval has been given under Sections 13 and 14 to transfer to the reserve fund of £1,920,000 and to payment to the Exchequer of £450,000. Loans totalling £555,000 have been wholly repaid. As regards the last part of the Question, Section 12 of the Act ceased to be operative on 31st July, 1959, and the question does not therefore arise. I see no occasion for a statement.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the Treasury satisfied with sums it has succeeded in repatriating from the Independent Television Authority? May I ask my hon. Friend particularly whether he considers that the allegations of opulence and extravagance in relation to the new I.T.A. headquarters in Brompton Road, S.W.1, are in consonance with his economic policy and his policy particularly of wage restraint and stability of incomes, or otherwise?

Sir E. Boyle: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "Yes, Sir". The answer to the second part is that I have no reason to suppose that, regarding the new headquarters, the Authority has not exercised a proper and businesslike judgment. May I add that I do not feel the least queasy about facing the electors of Handsworth on this issue?

Universities (Physics Teaching and Research)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, following the evidence submitted to the Robbins Committee by the Institute of Physics and the Physical Society, he will take immediate steps to increase the grant to the University Grants Committee so that the minimum requirements necessary to maintain satisfactory university physics teaching and research can be fulfilled.

Mr. Brooke: I have seen this evidence. As compared with the present academic year, the recurrent grant to the universities is to be increased by 13 per cent. next year, rising five years hence to 55 per cent.

Mr. Boyden: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the proposals made will meet the urgent recommendations of the Institute of Physics and the Physical Society? Does he agree with those recommendations or reject them?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think it is for me to say whether I agree with or reject recommendations made not to the Government but to the Robbins Committee.

Mr. Boyden: If action is not taken on this matter immediately, repercussions will be felt and delays will take place over a long time. Surely urgent attention ought to be given to this matter? This research is fundamental civil and military research.

Mr. Brooke: Very urgent attention has been given by the Government to the needs of the universities and unprecedented increases of grants to universities have recently been announced.

University Teachers (Salaries)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage increase, at the top of each scale of salaries for principals in the Civil Service and for lecturers at British universities, respectively, has taken place since 1956.

Mr. Brooke: For principals in the Civil Service, 27 per cent.; for university lecturers, 37 per cent.

Mr. Boyden: Does not this show a disparity between what university lecturers ought to get and what they are now being awarded? Can the right hon. Gentleman expect university lecturers to cope with the greater expansion which is needed if their salaries are not kept more up to date?

Mr. Brooke: That is a wider question, but the Government consider that it would be inconsistent with their incomes policy in a field which is entirely under their own control to authorise an increase of more than 3 per cent. overall to university teaching staff.

Government Departments (Television Advertising)

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total expenditure of Government Departments on advertising in commercial television.

Sir E. Boyle: The total expenditure from the outset in 1957 up to the end of December, 1961, was £775,910.

Dr. King: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this money could be shared between the Exchequer and the B.B.C. if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get in touch with the B.B.C. with a view to making important Government announcements over the B.B.C. radio and television? Would not such an arrangement benefit both the Exchequer and the B.B.C.?

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Gentleman would like to make representations, I should be glad to discuss this with him. From the Government's point of view, the important and essential thing is to get value for money, and we believe that on the whole we have achieved this.

Armaments Industries

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the Report of the United Nations Economic and Social Council on Economic and Social Consequences of Disarmament; and what action is being taken along the lines suggested by this report to avoid unemployment in the armaments industries.

Sir E. Boyle: The Report recently published is by the Secretary-General of the United Nations not by the Economic and Social Council. The General Assembly's Resolution No. 1516 of 17th December, 1960, requested the Secretary-General to submit this Report to the Economic and Social Council; and it will now be discussed at the 34th Session of the Council, which is due to be held at Geneva in July of this year. Her Majesty's Government are considering the Report carefully in preparation for this discussion. I do not consider any further action to be called for at the present time.

Mr. Hynd: Will the Government do all they can to publicise the findings of this Council in order to reassure people that unemployment will not necessarily follow disarmament? Does he agree that the sooner we divert the money, skill and energy expended on armaments to more useful channels the better it will be for everybody?

Sir E. Boyle: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's Question gives me an opportunity of quoting from paragraph 173 of the conclusions, which says:
It seems abundantly clear that no country need fear a lack of useful employment opportunities for the resources that would become available to it through disarmament.

Mr. Prentice: Will the Government consider issuing a popular version of the Report so that it can be widely read and so that the reassurances to which my hon. Friend referred can be more widely understood?

Sir E. Boyle: I will pass that suggestion on. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider it. My information is that Part I of the Report is to be published by the United Nations in New York in about ten days' time, and copies should be available shortly afterwards in this country.

Sir C. Osborne: How many workers in this country will be affected by such proposals?

Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend has asked a question which no human being could answer without notice. I must tell him frankly that I still take the same view of his views on this question as I took when he asked a Question some weeks ago. It is quite clear that this country could well find useful employment for all the resources and skilled manpower which would become available.

Production and Exports

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what improvements in production and exports have resulted from the Government's policy of concessions to Surtax payers and the pay pause.

Mr. Brooke: The Government's purpose is to increase our efficiency and competitive power. The trend of industrial costs is certainly more favourable to exports than it would have been without the pay pause. We now have good prospects for an expansion of production based firmly on export growth; and the Surtax changes which will take effect next January, bringing our tax system more into line with those of our principal competitors, are an extra incentive to make full use of these opportunities.

Mr. Hynd: I hope that the Chief Secretary's optimism will be fulfilled, although it does not seem to have a very sound basis. Will he take the opportunity of next Monday's Budget to withdraw the concessions promised to Surtax payers so that they will be able to take a fair share of any sacrifices which may be necessary to bring the country out of the financial mess into which the Government have got it?

Mr. Brooke: The Government have taken all the right measures to create the most favourable conditions for an expansion of export trade this year. I cannot hold out any special expectations one way or the other six days in advance about the Budget.

Mr. Mitchison: Since the Government's policy was introduced production and exports have fallen. Is that what the Government meant to be the effect?

Mr. Brooke: What the Government meant to do was to end the weakness of sterling. Sterling is now strong and people on the Continent are envious of the favourable position into which we have now got ourselves, thanks to the Government's measures.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not a fact that since the pay pause our costs have improved greatly relative to what has been happening in Germany and elsewhere on the Continent?

Mr. Brooke: That is absolutely true, and it is fundamental.

Mr. Jay: Is it not rather a striking comment on the Government's policy that in the year in which the biggest Surtax cut was announced for twenty years there has also been the biggest fall in production in this country for twenty years?

Mr. Brooke: The Surtax cut has not yet taken effect. As I have said, we are better placed for a big increase in exports than any other large industrial country in the world.

Salaries, Wages and Dividends

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take legislative steps to ensure that increases in dividends do not exceed the average level of increments on salaries and wages.

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: May I assume from that Answer that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with a policy as outlined in his White Paper, namely, a policy of restraint on increases in the incomes of those engaged in the public service and in industry while he continues to make fruitless appeals to the dividend hunter? Is that what he calls a policy of equality of restraint? Will not he think of something more fair?

Mr. Brooke: The object of the Government's policy is to secure the maximum growth in exports and in the economy as a whole. In the past year wages and salaries have increased by 7½ per cent. and profits, out of which dividends are paid, have decreased by 5½ per cent.

Schedule A

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to introduce legislation in order that the new rateable values to come into operation in 1963 shall be thereafter used for the purposes of Schedule A Income Tax.

Sir E. Boyle: The right hon. Member will not be surprised when I say that I cannot make any statement on this subject at this time.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made a very startling statement about rateable values, which are rising, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, by about four times the 1939 values? If the Schedule A net annual values follow the same course, it will mean that Schedule A tax for owner-occupiers and others will increase enormously. Does he not think it is high time that he or somebody else in the Government made a statement on this?

Sir E. Boyle: This point has not escaped the Government's attention, but the right hon. Gentleman will hardly expect a statement on this point during this week.

Mr. F. Harris: Is it not about time that the Government decided to abolish Schedule A tax altogether?

Sir E. Boyle: I seem to remember that this subject has been discussed on earlier Finance Bills. My hon. Friend will have opportunities of discussing the matter again during the coming weeks.

Income Tax (65–70 Age Group)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the particular Income Tax problems of men in the 65–70 years age group; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Lady will let me know the precise problems she has in mind, I will gladly consider her representations. But I could not, in any event, anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mrs. Butler: Does the Financial Secretary realise that for men in this age group who continue working tax can be as high as 8s. 4d. in the £ when they earn £6 17s. 6d. a week, which is 42 per cent. of the wage earned? This largely nullifies the value of their going out to work to provide themselves with extra food and comfort to what they can get on their pensions. Will the hon. Gentleman look at this problem with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to see whether an improvement can be effected?

Sir E. Boyle: I thought that the hon. Lady had in mind the position of men who postpone retirement beyond 65 and continue in regular employment for at any rate part of the next five years. I assure the hon. Lady that these problems are very much in our minds, but I am equally certain that she will not expect me to make any further statement now.

Turnover Tax

Mr. Leather: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have a study made, and information published, of the effect on British industry of abolishing Profits Tax and substituting a turnover tax on the German model, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Somerset, North, designed to yield approximately the same amount of revenue.

Sir E. Boyle: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Leather: I thank my hon. Friend for that assurance. Would he not agree that our present direct taxation system, on both companies and individuals, is primarily a tax on work and that the more successfully one works the more one is taxed? There are prima facie grounds for believing that other countries manage to raise their revenue in ways which are less predatory on incentive. We are handicapped in making comparative studies until such time as the Treasury will give some facts and figures.

Sir E. Boyle: It would not be easy to answer that supplementary question within the confines of a Parliamentary answer. This week it would be harder than ever, and I must ask my hon. Friend to accept my original Answer.

Buses (Fuel Oil Duty)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount was collected during the past year in duty from fuel oil used in buses.

Sir E. Boyle: About £32 million.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Financial Secretary ask the Chancellor, before next Monday's Budget, to bear in mind that 2s. 9d. a gallon tax represents a rate of 275 per cent.; that this is very unfair to bus passengers, who are not usually the wealthiest members of the community, and that this is having a serious effect on bus fares and may even cause some bus undertakings to cut their services?

Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Airports (Duty-Free Purchases)

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements exist, or are proposed, at London Heathrow and Gatwick airports for the provision of duty-free shops for transit and departing passengers.

Sir E. Boyle: Duty-free liquor can already be bought at Heathrow, and discussions are in progress about the sale in the new long-haul building of other goods free of Import Duty and Purchase Tax. There are no such facilities at Gatwick.

Mr. Johnson: As duty-free shops are being increasingly provided at international airports and are very popular with tourists, whom we wish to come here in increasing numbers, will the hon. Gentleman see that this matter is pursued with vigour?

Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I hope that discussions about Heathrow will be completed within the next month. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is quite an important point. There are real difficulties at Gatwick. Until the terminal building there is further developed it would be difficult to make further space available, but the possibility of a duty-free liquor counter is being examined.

Toll Bridges (Tax-Free Incomes)

Mr. Marten: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take action on tax-free incomes arising from toll bridges.

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Marten: Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend realise that many of these incomes from toll bridges are not only tax-free but also free of rates and death duties? Would he look at this and take some appropriate action when he can?

Sir E. Boyle: I have taken notice of my hon. Friend's recent representations on this matter. Of course, there is no exemption from tax for the profits of the toll bridges generally, although in a few cases special exemption is conferred by long-standing enactments.

Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow

Mr. Hannan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he has now received from the University Grants Committee about the future status of the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow; and what decision has been reached in the matter.

Mr. Brooke: I cannot at present add to my previous replies on this matter.

Mr. Hannan: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he is likely to receive such a reply? Since the new quinquennium starts on 1st August this


year, will he bear in mind that an early and favourable reply would be most appropriate in this instance?

Mr. Brooke: I realise the great interest there is in this matter, but, as I said before, it is my duty to await whatever advice the University Grants Committee may think fit to give. I do not think it would be right for me to seek to hasten that Committee.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: But is it not the case that the University Grants Committee have given advice lately but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been notably ready to accept it? In this case, are not the facts already fully known, and is not this just a case of the Government postponing a decision?

Mr. Brooke: Not at all. I really think that it would be discourteous for the Government to make a statement about this, having told Parliament that they propose to await the advice of the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that this matter is not being inquired into at all by the Rob-bins Committee?

Mr. Brooke: As I said, there is no need to wait for the advice of the Robbins Committee on this, but I do think that it would be right to await the advice of the University Grants Committee.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister what recent representations he has made to President Kennedy regarding the resumption of the United States atmospheric tests before another attempt has been made to reach agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at a summit conference.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consult President Kennedy on the feasibility of both the United States and the United Kingdom Governments accepting a test ban agreement based on a national control system of all tests with provision for international verification in cases of dispute.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am, of course, in constant communication with President Kennedy

on these matters, but this must be confidential if it is to be useful. While the Disarmament Conference is meeting at Geneva, I would prefer not to enter into a discussion about particular proposals. But, as the House knows, the Russians have so far rejected any form of verification within the Soviet Union. I have at present nothing to add to what I have already told the House.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that the hopes of some of us were raised by reports that Her Majesty's Government were bringing pressure to bear on the United States Government to postpone their atmospheric tests until after a summit conference had been held? Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that those reports are not true? Is it not the fact that in the Disarmament Conference the neutral nations have been pressing for this course of action, and ought we not to be supporting them?

The Prime Minister: The neutral nations have been discussing this matter in full at the plenary session, and it has been discussed, of course, in the sub-committee. I have nothing at present to add to what I have already told the House

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the recent statement by the Soviet Foreign Minister that it is now possible for national monitoring to take place of all nuclear tests, would the Prime Minister consider publicising the views of British and American scientists on that statement? Is it not of vital importance that public opinion should know exactly what is scientifically possible in this sphere?

The Prime Minister: It is, of course, true that certain advances have been made, but I think that that statement is much too general. However, the real point is that some system of verification—whatever be the system of first finding out a complaint—is necessary in order to prove or disprove what might be alleged by a national system of inquiry.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister say whether it is his opinion that effective international verification does require control posts on Soviet territory, whether manned by American and British teams or by neutral teams?

The Prime Minister: In the present state of science, yes, Sir. I do not think that that would necessarily be always the case. It is a very complicated scientific problem, but the real difficulty is, as I have said, that wherever the control post was, whether in Soviet territory or outside, it would make what might be called a prima facie case that an explosion had taken place that was unexplained. There must be some system of verification in order to make the treaty effective.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure the Prime Minister appreciates—or does he appreciate?—that there is a distinction between insisting that the control posts in the Soviet Union should be manned by representatives of Britain and the United States and that they should be manned by representatives of neutral countries. Does the West object to representatives of neutral countries being there, or is it merely a question that there must be control posts in the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: Well, Sir, I think that we have tried this in all possible ways. I think that the last thing I saw was that Mr. Dean Rusk suggested that the verification teams should be neutral, as well as having neutrals if there were control posts. The trouble is that over and over again we simply got the same answer: the Soviet Union will not agree to any system of verification which involves even a visit to Soviet soil.

Mr. Mason: Can the Prime Minister say what is the advice now available to him from our nuclear scientists? Is it not possible to detect all nuclear tests, whether made underground, underwater, in the atmosphere or in the stratosphere?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That is not at all possible. This is a very complicated matter, and I do not want to get into great detail about it, but what is possible underground is to know that some oscillation has taken place. It is a very difficult matter for the instruments to know whether that oscillation is due to a natural or to an unnatural cause. It is a question of the difference that may be shown in the waves. It may show a suspicion, but the point is that if that suspicion is revealed, wherever

the posts may be, there must be some verification to prove or disprove the allegation of a breach of the treaty.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister at any rate confirm that it is now possible to get full verification from outside in respect of atmospheric tests—and, possibly, in respect of underground tests—from about one kiloton upwards, or whatever the figure may be; that atmospheric tests may be verified? Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, though it would be a very poor second-best, that an agreement on atmospheric tests would be a very big step forward? Would he, in studying this question—and we understand that he cannot say too much while negotiations are going on—also bear in mind the suggestion contained in the last few words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) that there might be national monitoring, but that where there is a dispute there must be a visit from, perhaps, a group of neutrals?

The Prime Minister: I can only repeat that we are trying to make all kinds of new suggestions in the hope of moving the Soviet Union from its present position of, "No form of verification of any kind on Soviet territory." But I could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's second point that national tests can verify nuclear explosions underground up to one kiloton, or even up to 5 kilotons. They cannot. They can verify that an oscillation has taken place. The problem is to decide the cause of the oscillation, and that varies very much at different ranges. It is a very complicated question. It is, curiously, worse at a moderate range than at either a near range or a very distant one. But it is quite an important point.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, atmospheric tests can certainly be verified, unless they are at a very great height, when they could only be verified, possibly, in an international way, or by some aeroplanes which would have to pick up the results. If the tests were 100 miles up, or something like that, they would not be the atmospheric tests about which we have been talking.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of representations made by the Canadian Prime Minister to the Lord Privy Seal, he will now call a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers this year.

Mr. Turton: asked the Prime Minister what recent request he has received for the convening of a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to discuss the problems of Great Britain's negotiations with the European Economic Community; and what reply he has sent.

The Prime Minister: I am in communication with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers about a suitable date for a Prime Ministers' Meeting, and I shall make a statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr. Healey: While welcoming the Prime Minister's belated surrender to pressure on this issue, may I ask him, in view of the very buoyant opinion he expressed at Stockton last night about the prospect of an early agreement between Britain and the Six, to assure the House that he, on behalf of the Government, is pressing for a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference before the Summer Recess so that the House can. if it so desires, debate its findings?

The Prime Minister: I cannot yet give a date of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. It is a very difficult task to fit in a date which suits what are now, I think, at least twelve Prime Ministers with all their different commitments.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that the pledge he gave last July—that there would be no agreement with the Community until after there had been full consultation with the Commonwealth—still stands? Will he make it plain that when he said last night that he was playing for high stakes he did not in any way imply any sacrifice of the Commonwealth for Europe?

The Prime Minister: No Sir, if my right hon. Friend read the whole text of what I said, he would see that it was

exactly as I have said over and over again in the House. What I was rebuking was a party which said that it would be prepared to accept a European agreement without even bothering at all about the Commonwealth or about British agriculture.

Mr. Shinwell: Assuming that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers object to having anything to do with the European Economic Community, would that make any difference to the Prime Minister? Did he not indicate in his speech yesterday a firm resolve to enter the Common Market, and would not a meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers be just a façade?

The Prime Minister: We have always made it clear that we would hold this meeting to discuss and consult with our Commonwealth friends at the right moment. The purpose of the messages I have sent out is to try to arrange for a meeting which, as I have said, has to suit both what we think is a good moment and, also, has to suit the many Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth with their very many different commitments.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Without pressing the Prime Minister for a date, may I ask him whether a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers will be held before the point of no return is reached in the negotiations with the European Economic Community?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but the whole problem is that we have to make reasonable progress with the negotiations in order to have a fruitful and effective conference.

Mr. H. Wilson: We are not quite sure about this. Is it now the Prime Minister's position that he will not put a proposition to the House for entry into the Common Market until after a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference has accepted, in broad terms, the proposals which will be put to the House? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he led his troops into the Lobby last July against a Motion in exactly those terms which we tabled?

The Prime Minister: First of all, the right hon. Gentleman, in his usual manner, puts words into my mouth and


then tries to make a false deduction from what I have said.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. H. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am very much concerned about how much time has been spent on this Question. I had called Mr. Holt.

Mr. Holt: Is the Prime Minister aware that we greatly welcomed the revelation last night that he has real enthusiasm for going into Europe? Is he aware that this sign of enthusiasm, when it is understood on the Continent, will be a great help in obtaining for him the best and most acceptable terms? Might I ask him if he is now satisfied that the Conservative deposit at Stockton has been saved?

The Prime Minister: If I may humbly say so, that does not explain the attitude of the hon. Gentleman's party, which wished us to accept these agreements without even taking the trouble of bothering about the Commonwealth or British agriculture.

Mr. H. Wilson: Could I now have an answer to the question I put, an answer that hon. Members on both sides of the House require from the Prime Minister? Will he or will he not give a clear assurance that the Government will not put a proposition for our entry into the Common Market until there has been a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and the terms of the proposition have been broadly agreed by that conference? Yes or no?

The Prime Minister: Again the right hon. Gentleman poses his own question and asks "Yes or no." This is a very old trick in the House which the right hon. Gentleman performs with great skill. Our position has been perfectly clear all through this question. We will continue the negotiations at Brussels up to a point where there is a sign that there is reasonable prospect of the negotiations being fruitful or not. There will then, I hope, be a Prime Ministers' Conference. It will then be our duty, having regard to what may have happened at Brussels or at the Conference, to put our proposals to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think we should try to get on.

Mr. Gaitskell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We are doing rather poorly with these Questions.

Mr. Gaitskell: On a point of order. I am sure that you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, as will all hon. Members, that this is an extremely important matter on which differing views are held. I would have thought it only reasonable for us to attempt to secure an answer from the Prime Minister on the extremely important issue as to exactly when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference will take place and how much attention the Prime Minister proposes to devote to it.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will understand my difficulty, because he is sometimes, I think, among the complainers, in the nicest possible way, about our progress with Questions. Nobody is disputing the extreme importance of this matter. I do not suppose that anyone would dispute the extreme importance of other matters which follow relating to nuclear tests and the like. I really think that we should make better progress.

Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's refusal to give that assurance, I beg to give notice that we on this side of the House will raise this matter in debate at the earliest possible opportunity.

GENERAL MAXWELL TAYLOR (VISIT)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what was the purpose of his recent official conversations in London with General Maxwell Taylor of the United States of America; and to what extent he discussed with him the questions of the independent nuclear deterrent and the proposal to strengthen British forces in Germany.

The Prime Minister: General Maxwell Taylor, who is an old friend from the days of the Mediterranean Campaign, called to see me at my request. Our talk was confidential.

Mr. Hughes: Since there have been widespread statements in newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic that the purpose of this visit was to make the Government change their defence policy and to bring pressure on the Government to introduce some form of conscription, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he gave no such pledge at all to reintroduce conscription?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman said that that was the purpose of the General's visit. Had that been so, General Maxwell Taylor would, no doubt, have asked to see me. What actually happened was that as he was coming to London and as he is an old friend of mine, I asked him to call on me.

ANGLO-CANADIAN TRADE

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the substantial drop in imports and exports between Canada and Great Britain in January last and the large increase in trade between Canada and the United States of America; and whether he will raise as one of the subjects for discussion with the Canadian Prime Minister at the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

The Prime Minister: The general trend of our trade with Canada in recent years has been upwards, and too much significance should not be attached to a single month's figures. Ways and means of achieving a further increase are under constant review both by ourselves and the Canadian Government. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) last Thursday, Commonwealth trade will

certainly be discussed at the next meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Mr. Bellenger: While appreciating the general trend of the Prime Minister's reply, he is aware, is he not, that there was a considerable drop in the volume of exports and imports as between this country and Canada and that that is a factor to be borne in mind if Mr. Diefenbaker, the Canadian Prime Minister, is going to insist on the terms on which this country enters the Common Market? Surely it is appropriate to remind the Canadian Prime Minister that Canada is directing her trade as she wishes and that Britain should also be given a free hand.

The Prime Minister: Those are relevant points, but the way I prefer to look at the matter is this. If all these developments in the world take place, I hope that in the long run they will tend to maximise trade between different groups and countries rather than reduce it.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask the Prime Minister to what extent the Government's borrowing from the International Monetary Fund in the middle of last year forced them to surrender, or was a condition of their surrendering, our national sovereignty on entering the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: That question falls to the ground because of its absurdity. These things are not connected at all. In point of fact, one of the satisfactory things of the economic action which the Government have taken over the broad field is that we have repaid so much of the International Monetary Fund money and hope to repay more.

FIREWORKS

3.32 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with regard to the sale and manufacture of fireworks.
The purpose of the Bill which I seek leave to introduce is to reduce the number of accidents arising from the use of fireworks, which has been growing annually despite everything which has been done in the way of education, exhortation and publicity about the dangers which arise on Guy Fawkes' Day and about using fireworks indiscriminately.
I want to make it clear at the outset that this is not an attempt at grandmotherly legislation. It is not an attempt to limit or to prohibit the rights of the individual except in so far as the rights of many individuals have already been infringed by the dangerous use of fireworks.
It might interest the House to know that I informed all the major firework manufacturing companies that I intended to seek leave to introduce the Bill this afternoon, and that I have had a varied bag of replies from them, some of which I hope to mention. The problem of the danger of fireworks and the fires and accidents which are caused by their use has been under consideration for a very long time. Every year we consider what more can be done to protect the public and children who use the fireworks from themselves and from the misuse of fireworks.
I have here a letter which I received some time ago from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The Society sent it to be in my capacity as Hon. Secretary of the all-party Parliamentary Home Safety Committee, whose members are heartily behind the Bill. The Society, as we know, is very anxious to ensure that the rate of accidents in this country is lowered, and it is quite certain that one of the ways to do it is to endeavour to reduce the number of accidents due to what I might call firework behaviour and the wrongful use of fireworks.
I wish to quote one paragraph from the Society's letter:

In the case of accidents arising through the use of fireworks, the sad fact is that education has been tried and failed. The Press campaign anent the dangers of misuse of fireworks both in 1960 and 1961 in the weeks preceding Guy Fawkes' Day could not have been more vigorous. Yet, despite all this publicity, it is understood that the official figures, obtained this year for the first time from all hospitals, disclose that in England alone there were over 400 hospital admissions and that over 3,000 out-patients were treated in respect of firework accidents in the 1961 firework season. Inevitably, a high proportion of the victims were children who will have to face life either blinded or disfigured in body.
This Society is not a killjoy organisation. Indeed, it is always most anxious to avoid suggesting any encroachment upon the liberty of the subject, provided that it is only the subject himself who will suffer the result of his own stupidity. However, where children are innocently involved, where the source of injury is not only fundamentally dangerous but also is not really a necessary concomitant of modern living, and where education in safe behaviour has patently failed, the Society has no option but to recommend what appears to be the only sensible and practicable course ",
that is, legislation, either to ban them completely or to prohibit the use of certain types of fireworks.
I have a large pile of correspondence here on this matter which I could not hope to read in full in the short time at my disposal, but I want to mention the letter which I think many right hon. and hon. Members, among others, have received from the Chief Constable of Birkenhead, who went to great trouble to go into the number of accidents and incidents which arose from the use of certain types of fireworks. They involved serious treatment and long terms in hospital for many youngsters. These accident figures are readily available. If any hon. Member is interested, I will let him have this letter afterwards.
The number of complaints of accidents which seriously frightened other members of the public due to "bangers" and the noise created by them was 51 in the Birkenhead area alone and the number of incidents with which the police had to deal on the night of 5th November was 502. The number of people taken to hospital or given attention other than hospital attention for burns was 418. Those figures relate to one area alone. I have had letters from the Birmingham Accident Hospital and from the doctors there who are responsible for trying to reclaim the


damaged bodies of children who have suffered serious accidents from fireworks.
There was an interesting article in the British Medical Journal of 4th November, 1961, about accidents caused a year previously and setting out a table of accidents since 1955. This is a frightening set of figures for anyone who studies it. The doctor who wrote the article, Dr. Jackson, said that the commonest form of injury until 1956 was caused by fireworks held in the hand. Even since then, it has been the cause of very serious long-term accidents among many small boys.
Opinion on this point has been divided among the organisations manufacturing fireworks. Indeed, one would not expect it to be otherwise. Some of these organisations say, "This is ridiculous. We put a notice on the firework about how it should be held. If the child or other buyer does not use it properly, that is his fault". However, in the past, we in this country have had to do away with many things because they were not suitable for use by the public.
I believe that we have reached a stage in our history when it is no longer necessary for a child to have 1d., l½d., or 2d. "bangers" to celebrate Guy Fawkes' day. When I was a small child—I am sure that many hon. Members will have a recollection similar to mine—I did not get as much pocket money as the average child gets today. I had 3d. a week, and when I bought a 1d. "banger" that was a time for celebration. On average, children today have much more pocket money than we used to have and far larger sums of money to spend on things which amuse them. Yet, many fireworks can be bought for 1d., 1½d., or 2d.
There is a small amount of Purchase Tax on them, which has recently been imposed, but it does not amount to a sum great enough to make any difference. Today, children use fireworks in the autumn as a status symbol in the way that children, in my young days gathered marbles or chestnuts, which we swopped among ourselves.
I was speaking only ten days ago to a little boy in my constituency who had had a very serious accident resulting from fireworks. He had 18 "bangers" in his pocket and some "silly ass" put a lighted match beside them. Hon.

Members may say that it is nonsense to take the view that I take, but let us be clear about this: boys will be boys and behave like this. As long as the law allows any boy over the age of 13 to go into a shop and spend what he likes on this type of firework, small boys will enjoy a noise if they can get it. If we allow this freedom, surely we must find means of ensuring that children are not allowed to have so many in their pockets.
I have with me some pictures, published in the British Medical Journal, copies of which have been sent to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, showing the extent of damages resulting from accidents when small boys have had these fireworks in their pockets and they have been accidentally set alight. This is apart from what happens when "bangers" are put under passing cars, or when they are shoved through letter boxes and elderly people, living on their own, suffer great fright.
This is not unknown. It happened to me some years ago and except for the fact that I picked up the quite large and smouldering thing after it had exploded, and got rid of it, I would have had a nasty burn on my carpet. One does not want this kind of thing to happen in the guise of amusement. Then there is the plight of the animals, about which every year there is an outcry.
Nobody wants to stop celebrating 5th November, or young people enjoying themselves, but we do want to stop the indiscriminate use of "bangers" and the like around the streets of our cities, where they can do so much damage. This is only a humble attempt to try to limit the type of firework, following which the law must state that these types of fireworks may not be shown or offered for sale after the period when, we hope, the law regarding them will be changed.
I want, however, to quote from the British Pyrotechnics Association, which states:
We assure you that the members of this Association will join in anything they consider practicable to reduce the number of accidents, but they certainly do not consider the experience to date to justify a move of this nature.
When will they consider the number of accidents and their results to justify a


move of this nature? Are we to wait until the accidents increase each year to such a rate that there is a public outcry, or are we to be the responsible people which we must be in Parliament and endeavour to meet the needs of the time? If so, we must bring in this Bill and limit these "bangers" so that a firework which merely goes off with a noise is not manufactured.
We have far from solved our juvenile delinquency problem. We all know that it is one of the black spots on our society. If we allow these things to be manufactured and used and carried around, accidents will continue. Youngsters can have 20 or more stuck in their pockets and can buy them for the price of a "Coke" or a milk shake. This is only an inducement to young people to be naughty. Those who are stupid, we might be able to educate, but the downright devilment in our society is being encouraged by the use of these "bangers".
Little girls and old people can be frightened. Boys can make themselves appear big heroes by letting off a whole whack of fireworks in the middle of the street. I am sure that we could do a great deal to turn the minds of our young people to other things.

It has been said that if we leave the problem and do nothing about it, eventually it will sort itself out. We have heard this before on other matters. It has been said that if we ban these noisy fireworks, we will drive the unscrupulous and stupid to make their own. I do not believe this, because the Home Secretary has power to seize fireworks which are dangerous and which are not manufactured to the requisite standard. He can control anything which is on sale but is not up to standard. We are not grumbling about the standard.

In asking leave to introduce the Bill, I hope that hon. Members on both sides will agree that this is an attempt to try to help young people and not to hinder them. It is not an attempt to do away with the enjoyment of Guy Fawkes day, but rather to do away with the dangers surrounding it and to clear some of the hospital beds which should never be filled because of accidents resulting from them.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committee at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 34.

Division No. 143.]
AYES
[3.45 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hynd, John (Atterclifte)


Awbery, Stan
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Iremonger, T. L.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Batsford, Brian
Forman, J. C.
James, David


Biffen, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Biggs-Davison, John
Gammans, Lady
Jennings, J. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Ginsburg, David
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Goodhart, Philip
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gower, Raymond
Kershaw, Anthony


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
King, Dr. Horace


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Lawson, George


Cleaver, Leonard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Leather, E. H. C.


Costain, A. P.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Coulson, Michael
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hendry, Forbes
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Cronin, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Crowder, F. P.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hiley, Joseph
Litchfield, Capt. John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hocking, Philip N.
Loveys, Walter H.


Dance, James
Holland, Philip
McAdden, Stephen


de Ferranti, Basil
Hollingworth, John
McCann, John


Dempsey, James
Holman, Percy
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
McLeavy, Frank


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Doughty, Charles
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Duncan, Sir James
Hunter, A. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Marsh, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)




Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Probert, Arthur
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Millan, Bruce
Proctor, W. T.
Teeling, Sir William


Mills, Stratton
Redhead, E. C.
Temple, John M.


Moody, A. S.
Rees, Hugh
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Morgan, William
Reid, William
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Nabarro, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Robson Brown, Sir William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Russell, Ronald
Walker, Peter


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Seymour, Leslie
Wall, Patrick


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Weitzman, David


Pargiter, G. A.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Paton, John
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Peyton, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Winterbottom, R. E.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stevens, Geoffrey
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Stodart, J. A.



Prentice, R. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Dr. D. Johnson and




Mr. George Craddock.




NOES


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Bell, Ronald
Holt, Arthur
Noble, Michael


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Brooman-White, R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Kelley, Richard
Short, Edward


Channon, H. P. G.
Kimball, Marcus
Wade, Donald


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kitson, Timothy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)



Greenwood, Anthony
Longbottom, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Lubbock, Eric
Mr. Loughlin and


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Mr. Allason.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin, Dr. Donald Johnson, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Mrs. Alice Cullen, Mrs. Eveline Hill, Mr. Leonard Cleaver, Mr. George Craddock, Mr. Eric Johnson and Sir Barnett Janner.

FIREWORKS

Bill to amend the law with regard to the sale and manufacture of fireworks, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th May and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

Orders of the Day — SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee) read.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 2, lines 28 and 42; Clause 33, page 27, line 36; and Schedule 2, page 37, line 15, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. James H. Hoy; and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 5, page 6, line 45, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Frederick Peart.
The purpose of this Recommittal Motion is to permit the Committee to deal with the shellfish industry. There was a slight error in Standing Committee, when, apparently, the Amendments were not quite in order. As a result, we decided to table them for this stage of the Bill.
The second purpose of the Motion is to permit us further to examine the scheme for co-operative research within the industry. It is only right that as all sections of the industry received fairly full consideration in Standing Committee, we should now have an opportunity of discussing the shellfish industry, which is not very large but is extremely important in certain parts of the country.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): In view of the fact that for reasons of order it was not possible to discuss the matters in Committee, and there was an evident desire on both sides that they should be discussed, I agree that the Bill should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF SCOPE AND DURATION, AND PROVISION FOR INCREASE, OF WHITE FISH AND HERRING SUBSIDIES.)

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:

(5) The definition of "white fish" in subsection (5) of the said section five shall be extended so as to include shell fish.

The Chairman: I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss also the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hay-man), in page 2, line 42, at the end to insert, "as amended by this section" and the Amendments to Clause 33, page 27, line 36, to leave out from "fish" to "has" in line 37, and to the Second Schedule, page 37, line 15, at the end to insert:
(4) In subsection (5) of that section, in the definition of "white fish", the words "does not include shell fish, but except as aforesaid" shall be omitted.

Mr. Hayman: Thank you, Sir William. I should, first, express our gratitude to the Minister for agreeing to permit these items to be discussed at this stage. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but had a great interest in its proceedings, particularly concerning shellfish. These four Amendments deal with shellfish and refer to Section 5 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, which provides that
the appropriate Minister may, in accordance with a scheme made by the Ministers with the approval of the Treasury, make grants to the owners or charterers of fishing vessels engaged in catching such fish … of such amounts, and subject to such conditions, as may be determined by or under the scheme.
Subsection (2) of Section 5, as amended by the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1957, provides that the scheme may provide for the payment of grants in the case of any vessel in respect of white fish landed from the vessel in the United Kingdom, voyages made by the vessel for the purpose of catching such fish and landing them in the United Kingdom or for certain other matters to be specified in the scheme. Subsection (5) of Section 5 of the 1953 Act defines white fish so as to exclude shellfish.

Clause 1 of the Sea Fish Industry Bill seeks to extend the scope and the duration of the white fish and herring subsidies and in effect makes amendments in Sections in the Acts of 1953 and 1957 and subsection (7) of that Clause applies the definition of white fish in Section 5 of the Act of 1953. The Second Schedule to the Bill contains a series of consequential amendments of enactments,


including a number of amendments to the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953. An amendment to the First Schedule to the Bill in Standing Committee, the effect of which was to extend Section 5 of the Act of 1953 so as to include shell fish was ruled out of order on the technical ground that Clause 1 applied the definition in Section 5 of the Act of 1953 and that as the Committee had already approved Clause 1 the amendment was seeking to alter something to which the Committee had already agreed.

The first question is whether the Amendments we are now discussing would, if accepted by this Committee, widen the scope of the Money Resolution. I am assured by the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales that that would not be so. The subsidy, if granted for shellfish, would amount to about £50,000 a year and could be absorbed by the total sum envisaged by the Government under this Bill.

I need not stress how important this concession to the shell fishermen would be. Clause 33, the Interpretation Clause, reads:
'sea-fish' means fish of any description Sound in the sea, including shell fish …".
It also says that
' fishing-boat' means a vessel of whatever size, and in whatever way propelled, which is for the time being employed in sea fishing;

I understand that the position is that boats which are used both for shell fishing and for other fishing purposes qualify for a boat building subsidy. But the shell fishermen are exceptional in being denied a subsidy on the first hand sale of catches. Middle waters and distant waters are fished by great trawlers, owned by companies worth considerable sums of money, which qualify for the subsidy. In the main, however, the shellfish industry is carried on by small boats and often by individual families or men.

I know Cornwall best of all, and there we have not far short of 300 miles of rocky coast. These men have to battle with Atlantic gales and other hazards to earn their living. Yet they are among the best type of fishermen—indeed, among the best type of men. To deprive them of this financial assistance—they are the only group in our fishing industry who are so denied—is very harsh treatment.

Their craft are small and they are particularly liable to gale damage. True, the Fleck Committee did not recommend that the subsidy should be extended to the shell fishermen, but 1 suggest that it had in mind the shell fishermen of Scotland and Northern Ireland rather than the shell fishermen of England and Wales.

The total value of shellfish landings in 1959 was about £2 million. Of that total, about £1 million was accounted for by lobster and crab. But Norway lobsters fetched about £400,000, or 20 per cent. of the total value of the shellfish catch. Yet Norway lobster fishing is confined to Scottish and Northern Irish fishermen, who catch fish by trawl and seine net. Nor do they use inshore vessels.

Mr. John M. Temple: Can the hon. Gentleman help the Committee by giving the figure for shrimps? Does he include shrimps in the Amendment?

Mr. Hayman: Yes, they are included in the Amendment. Details about shrimps are given in the Fleck Report, but I have not got them with me.
Although the total production of lobster and crab for the United Kingdom is about £1 million, imports of canned crab in 1959 were worth £2,700,000. In Cornwall, at least, the shellfish industry has to deal with considerable fishing—if not depredations—by the French crabbing fleet. These French craft are often fishing within the three-mile limit off our coast. I am told that fleets of up to 50 French crabbers are often around the Cornish coast.
I have said that our shell fishermen are exposed to all the hazards of the sea. As hon. Members who were here will remember, at Question Time yesterday I was told that crabbers who fish off Lundy Island are likely to be fired on. Apparently, however, I cannot put a Question on this to any Minister because, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday, this is a police matter and the county police do not come under the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary. I am at a loss at the moment to know how we can ask the Chief Constable of Devonshire why no action has been taken about his firing off Lundy. But I must not pursue that matter now.
I draw attention again to the fact that the country relies on our local fishermen to man the lifeboats. Every time we read of a vessel in danger at sea we feel a pang of sympathy for those involved, and we naturally expect the nearest lifeboat to go out, no matter what the danger. Indeed, we naturally expect that the men will be there to take her out. But unless the Minister is prepared to relent on this issue, the day may very well come, particularly round the Cornish coast, when there will be nobody to man the lifeboats and more lives will be lost at sea.
I beg the Minister to be generous to these men. They are a fine body of men carrying on a traditional industry. They are men on whom the country relies in time of danger. The total amount of this subsidy for the shellfish industry would be £50,000 and could be found within the general fund at his disposal.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Having listened to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) speaking to this Amendment, I must say that I move along the very same lines as he has. He has really dealt with everything there is to deal with on the Amendment. I have an idea that he will agree with what 1 am going to say, that I very much regret that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) is not with us this afternoon—

Mr. Hayman: I quite agree.

Mr. Marshall: —because, looking back on the many speeches I have made in this Chamber about the fishing industry, I notice that the number of the speeches I have made about the shellfish industry has been remarkably small, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has again and again stressed this point.
What I should like to put to my right hon. Friend is this. He cannot really be influenced by the principle of subsidy, otherwise we should not be dealing with this Bill at all. The principle of subsidy is in the Bill. Therefore, that is not a reason why he would be against the Amendment. I am wondering whether part of the reason may be that he still considers that in some way or other shellfish is a luxury which people from

time to time eat. If this be so, then, quite frankly, I think that he is out of date.
I think that this may have been so some years ago, but with the standard of living which we have at the present, and of which, I hope, we are all justly proud, people do from time to time wish to have crab and lobster. They are natural dishes for the people of these islands to eat. Therefore, I cannot see why the fishermen who specialise in this particular form of fishing should be penalised by comparison with those who specialise in other directions.
It is very simple to see, talking in national terms, that the sum involved is very small indeed. It is estimated that the total amount which is likely to be required is about £50,000. I would be prepared to go even as far as treating only for the fishermen who fish for lobster and crab, if the Minister felt inclined to put an Amendment down to deal only with lobsters and crabs, but he has not done this, and, therefore, we are dealing with the present Amendment, which covers all forms of shellfish.
I hope that even at this late hour in our consideration of the Bill the Minister will think again about it. I am quite sure that he fully realises that most of those who have anything to do with the shellfish industry have small boats and are what are known as very small units. To them, therefore, this Amendment means a very great deal.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne mentioned the enormous value that these men are to the nation in manning lifeboats. I should not like the Minister to forget that during both of the late wars they also served us in another very valuable way. They knew all the "holes" of the sea and could tell more about them than could be known from the charts. This was of enormous invisible value to us when we were at war.
I plead again with the Minister to reconsider this whole matter, to agree to this Amendment to the Bill, and to treat these fishermen in exactly the same way as he is treating the rest of the fishing industry.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I should like to support everything which my hon. Friend the Member


for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) has said on behalf of the fishermen in the inshore areas around his own constituency as well as mine. I recognise that this is not purely a constituency matter, as many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have a very particular and very personal interest in the welfare of these small operators, if I may so call them. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) has just said would be endorsed by every hon. Member on this side, and I hope that the Minister will try to bring in these smaller people in the smaller places.

The Amendment is important from many points of view. It has always been declared Government policy to maintain the population in these areas which are most threatened by depopulation, largely because they are small places, and because they depend on industries which in turn are at the mercy of weather and climate and all sorts of conditions beyond their control. This is an industry in which one can do only so much planning and then nature takes over and frequently upsets all the calculations; and does so far more than it does even in agriculture. The least we can do is to draw attention to the special difficulties of what are, after all, very special little communities with special problems of their own.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin has just referred to two things, one of which my hon. Friend referred to before he did. One was the fact that these are men upon whom we depend for manning the lifeboat services. That is, of course, true. One has only to listen to radio reports, during the winter months particularly, to know what that means. It means that these men are called out at all hours, usually in the deep of the night, to do an almost impossible and dangerous job of work. There is no substitute for their service—no substitute for it at all. One cannot on a national scale organise what these men do. One cannot organise from large centres. It has got to be based upon these little local communities and the good will and willingness of the men concerned to give their voluntary services.

Then the hon. Gentleman mentioned also, I think, the fact that we depend upon the fishing communities right round our coasts and the islands off them for

recruiting to the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy as well. That is true in peace time, as well as in war. It is men from the very same families who man the Merchant Navy who man the Royal Navy to a large extent, and, in war time particularly, the Royal Naval Reserve. It is on these lobster and other fishermen that we so much depend; and I am talking about the lobster fishermen in particular because it is in a large part of my own constituency mainly a lobster industry.

I remember a Minister in a Conservative Government in 1938, shortly before the war, giving me some figures about the number of the recruits who were drawn to the R.N.R. from the Hebrides, from the Western Isles, alone. The Leader of the House will confirm those figures if nobody else can, because he has a special interest in and knowledge of that area. That Minister said that 25 per cent. of the total recruitment of the R.N.R. in 1938 came from the Western Isles alone. That is quite a considerable strategic consideration. I hope that the Minister will have that in mind, also.

Then there is the cash side. As my hon. Friend quite rightly said, this is a very small bite out of the very large global total sum. I am quite sure that if there were a referendum of all the fishermen, of all the men in the industry and of all the interests in the industry, there would be an overwhelming "Aye" in favour of this Amendment. As I have said before, the men who sail in the drifters and trawlers and Seine net boats, and who man the lobster boats, are very often from the same families, and there is a brotherhood among them all. I am quite sure that if it were left to the industry itself there is no doubt that this small bite of the big total would be very gladly allocated in favour of those men who carry on the shellfish industry.

This is not entirely a narrowly inshore industry in the sense in which small-line fishing was. These men go out from my constituency right away to Rona and the Flannan Isles, the Monachs and the rest, sometimes for weeks at a time. They base themselves—to take one case—on the Island Bernera off the west of Lewis, and they go away for weeks at a time. Part


of their catch may be landed at their little home port, or it may be taken straight across the Minch, when they have a big enough catch, to be landed at Ullapool or Mallaig. These are quite long voyages, and especially bearing in mind the size of the vessels and the size of the enterprise, correspond to quite a fair middle-water voyage. An expedition by quite small boats from a village on the west of Lewis to go fishing for weeks at a time, and then take the catch right across the North Minch to the railhead or the roadhead, is quite an undertaking in itself. These voyages are comparable in length to those made by some much larger vessels. I hope that the Minister will also keep that in mind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne mentioned the advantages which the French and particularly the Breton crews and vessels have at times over our own fishermen, who labour under many disadvantages. It is because they labour under these disadvantages that we think it grossly unfair that they should also be discriminated against in the Bill, which will be the case if the Amendment is not made. The Bretons, French and Belgians come right among the fishing grounds of the Hebrides, and well within the limit, and there is nothing to stop them taking all the berried and small lobsters which our fishermen are not allowed to take. They whip them off to their own home ports and get rid of them there.

I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would say that nothing of that kind could possibly happen as long as he is watching with his fishery protection fleet, but one of the most blatant offences by a French vessel was caught up with only the other day at Stornoway. This is among the discouragements and difficulties which our own fishermen have to face and under which their foreign competitors do not labour, this restriction on size and other factors.

The refusal of this tiny bit of the global financial gesture to the industry as a whole means that the Minister would not be looked upon with great kindness and would do nothing to add to his reputation for seeing to the best interests

of the fishermen. We are more concerned about these local people than we are about the bigger fellows who are able to organise a lobby of their own, especially on the benches opposite.

Winter has a habit of recurring about the same time every year.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): All the year.

Mr. MacMillan: If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of my constituency, he is perfectly right. It is practically all the year, though I should not damage the tourist industry by saying so.
It is unfortunate that during certain months men cannot follow the lobster fishing industry. They have to pack up for the time being and there is little else to which they can turn their hands. Because they are not fishing, they not only lose their income but the right to unemployment benefit. Just because winter occurs roughly at the same time every year a pattern of employment and unemployment is set. The Leader of the House knows all about the operation of the seasonal regulations affecting fishermen's unemployment benefit, which has not changed since he was Minister of Labour. It is absurd, but it is another disability under which these men labour.
Again, these men usually work in outlying areas and places far away from their markets. Their products have to face competition from big ports further south and foreign sources and they face the heavy burden of freight charges which no other area has to carry. If we were to add to all these natural and other difficulties, and their very real and special problems, by the injustice of leaving them out of the benefits of the Bill, under which more happily placed interests will be a great deal better off, it would be a reflection upon the Minister and the House. I hope that for the sake of the good name of the House, and of hon. Members of all parties, the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I hope that, if it is at all possible for him to do so, my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has said that this is a constituency matter. It is to the extent that


those of us who have shell fishing interests in and around our constituencies are anxious to urge acceptance of the Amendment, but I look upon it primarily as a matter of justice between one class of fishermen and another.
In my experience of the operation of the shellfish industry round the Norfolk coast, and of the many boats which put out from King's Lynn and the small Norfolk coast towns, I can well understand the feeling of fishermen there when they see others receiving subsidies for which they do not qualify. Recently, in the Port of King's Lynn, large quantities of sprats have been landed. These are subject to subsidy, but much of the catch has had to go to manufacture as manure because of the lack of any other market. Shell fishermen have seen this happen while they have been unable to obtain a subsidy for their own catches which are sold as very good human food.
Whelk fishermen on the Norfolk coast have suffered damage to their gear from trawlers which come from other ports. Those vessels receive subsidies for their catches while the small operators in the whelk fishing industry receive no recompense either for their losses or for the fact that they do not receive a subsidy. It seems to me, therefore, that, in justice, we cannot give a subsidy to one class of fishermen and not to the other.
I sincerely hope that for the sake of that justice my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Peart: My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) is to be congratulated upon moving the Amendment, which seeks to provide aid for an important section of the fishing industry. I hope that the Minister has now been convinced by my hon. Friend's argument and by the fact that it has been reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) and my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), who represent constituencies where shell fishing plays an important part.
I think that the case has been made out and I hope that the Minister will give us a sympathetic answer. We are discussing a Bill which involves the

spending of several millions of pounds. The House has approved in principle the giving of aid to the trawler industry, the white fish industry and the herring industry, and for the establishment of ice-making factories. The amount of money proposed to be spent on aid to inshore fishing will be only about £50,000 a year. This is a small amount, but it is important in view of the nature of the industry.
I should like to quote what has become the "Bible" of the fishing industry, the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry, known as the Fleck Report, which, in paragraph 159, states:
Inshore fishermen have a virtual monopoly of shellfish catching and it is natural to look to the expansion of these fisheries for a substantial improvement in the industry's economic circumstances although it provides a relatively small part of their total income at present.
In other words, the Fleck Committee looked to the shellfish industry to develop and to make an important contribution to the resources of our inshore fisherman.
4.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Bodmin said that he would not mind if the Minister limited this provision to lobsters and crabs. I hope that we shall not limit this as narrowly as that. I am surprised that the hon. Member should be so selfish. He has generally taken a broad view in regard to the shellfish industry. I hope that the Minister will heed the pleas that have been made, and will provide aid for this part of the industry.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether shrimps would be included. I hope that they will be. In my constituency there is the port of Maryport, where the shrimp industry plays a part in what I admit is a small industry, but it provides an important revenue for some of my inshore fishermen. Silloth and Whitehaven can also be important to the shrimp industry. The Fleck Committee set out in a table the details of shellfish landings, and lists a great variety of shellfish—lobsters, crabs, nephrops, oysters, mussels, squids, escallops, shrimps, whelks, cockles, and so on.
I hope that the Minister will give a favourable reply to the case that has been made for assistance to be given to


these men. As has been said, they face great difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles referred to the distance they are from markets, and the problem of freight charges with which they have to contend. These fishermen face graver difficulties than are experienced in those parts of the industry to which we are giving aid.
Reference has also been made to the fact that these are invariably the men who man our lifeboats, and, when needed, make their contribution to the Royal Navy. I hope that the Minister will be generous. After all, £50,000 is a small amount compared with the total aid that we are providing. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: As 1 understand it, this Amendment is permissive, it is concerned with not more than £50,000 a year, and this is the last opportunity that we shall have for ten years to discuss this matter. I think, therefore, that this is a good opportunity to spend a little time discussing this small but, for all that, important section of the industry.
It is perhaps a good thing that the House of Commons should from time to time turn its attentions to discussing a few men who are doing a vital job. In these days of the "big battalions," and when perhaps the Conservative Party is under some criticism for allowing the big man to get away with things and not clamping down on him as much as it should, this is perhaps a good opportunity for the Government to show that they have the interests of the little man at heart. By looking after his interests here, they would not only be helping a small minority but would be helping to keep alive the great tradition that we have as a seafaring nation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment. The sum involved is not very large. It is not something that will arouse great controversy in the country as another addition to the subsidy bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be generous; that he will assure us that the subsidy

will be capable of administration; and that it will be given only to bona fide fishermen. Provided that that can be done—and I am certain that it can be—I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment. If he does not, I shall have no course available other than to support it, because I do not believe that there is any reason why the Government should not look at this matter generously and help this small section of the community.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: I support the Amendment on grounds which are rather different from those advanced so far. I support it mainly because since the introduction of commercial television the party opposite and the Government have done nothing except destroy what little there is left of our national heritage. They did nothing to save the Coal Exchange, or the Doric Arch. They have done nothing to prevent the spread of cities to the countryside. They have done nothing to prevent the spread of surburban bungalows into the countryside, and, in general, they have done nothing to prevent the destruction of what is left of our national heritage.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Member, but this has nothing to do with shellfish.

Mr. Crosland: I was coming to shellfish, Sir William.
One cannot deal in isolation with the simple economic case of a subsidy for shellfish. For the middle and distant waiter fleets the case for a subsidy is primarily economic. Most of us accept the view that the capital investment of these fleets must alter in shape, size, and direction if they are to compete in the next ten years.
The case for a subsidy for the shellfish industry, on the other hand, is primarily social. The small shellfish ports are part of our national heritage, and this, to my mind, is an overwhelming reason for subsidising them. The fact is that I do not share the prejudices of my hon. Friends against Breton fishermen. I have no prejudices as between Breton fishermen and fishermen from Britain. I have only one interest, that in Scotland, in Brittany, and elsewhere in Europe, there should still be large numbers of small ports which concentrate


on shellfish, and, I believe, add something to our national life as a whole.
It is not merely that these fishermen are brave people. I accept that. It is not merely that they man the lifeboats. I accept that, too. It is not merely that they serve the country during war. I accept that. I do not regard these as adequate reasons for providing a subsidy. The adequate reason for a subsidy is that if these small ports are not helped they will gradually be overwhelmed and this traditional form of social life will disappear. It would be very damaging if this happened, and I am sorry that I come back to the point about the damage which has been done to the British countryside during the last ten years.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to come back to that point on this Amendment.

Mr. Crosland: I simply say, by way of analogy, that having seen a great deal of damage done in other directions, I do not want to see this large number of fishing ports in Britain or Brittany disappear, because I believe that they add a sort of outlet for the rest of the country, which is extremely healthy. I have a constituency interest in this matter. In Grimsby, we fish for crab on a small scale, but this is not my main reason for intervening in the discussion. I am concerned about the future of this type of small port, which is now threatened, if the Government do nothing to help it.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The fishing industry is very diverse, extending at one end of the scale to large distant water trawlers and at the other end to the type of vessel which we are discussing in this Amendment—small open vessels for catching shellfish. It is because my own constituency interest is in the distant waters fleet that I want to make a brief appeal to the Minister on this Amendment.
It seems to me that if this is the only type of vessel in the industry that will be unsubsidised there must be a very good reason for this decision. I agree that, in principle, one does not want to extend the whole idea of subsidies; indeed, the basic principle behind this Bill is that of getting rid of subsidies over a period of years. However, the

point has been made on several occasions that these vessels do not fish for luxury foods.
If we import over £3 million worth of shellfish in one year, and we fish only £1 million worth ourselves there is a good case for supporting our own industry. The social need has been very well stressed by a number of hon. Members, and so has the rising cost of these vessels, the cost of the gear, and the damage caused to the fishing gear by other vessels, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall). This happens because foreign trawlers still come within the three-mile limit. I have seen the accounts of one Yorkshire firm concerned, and I noticed that practically every week there were sums of £50 to £100 for damage to nets and other gear. This is the case that I was trying to make to the Minister the other day about the extension of the three-mile limit to six miles, but I shall probably be ruled out of order if I pursue that point now.
There is surely a case for treating this section of the industry in the same way as other sections, it may be on grounds of social need, more than on grounds economic need, but we also have to realise the fact that this Amendment will cost very little. In addition to that, the power is permissive. If the Amendment were accepted, it would not automatically mean that the Minister has to go to the Treasury to get funds in order to subsidise this section of the industry. It is wholly permissive. All we are asking is that this part of the industry should be included under the same umbrella which covers all the other parts of the industry. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Soames: Very considerable arguments have been put forward from both sides of the Committee in favour of the Amendment. They divide themselves into two, one economic and on the grounds of justice, as it were, and the other, put forward by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who said that he would not like to see the disappearance of these delightful small fishing ports scattered round our coasts.


Perhaps I could deal with the arguments in that order.
First, on the economic grounds, the question is whether it is likely that what appeared to the hon. Member for Grimsby to be the danger will come about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has just said, the Amendment is permissive. If we accepted it, it would not make it incumbent upon the Government to give a subsidy to the shell fishermen, but I think that all those who have spoken would feel that it would not be right for the Government to accept the Amendment, permissive as it may be, unless we were intending to give a subsidy to the shell fishermen, because by the mere fact of accepting the Amendment, all those who take part in shell fishing would believe that this is what it would mean, and that a subsidy was likely to be forthcoming. I do not think it would be right to harp on that aspect of the matter.
4.45 p.m.
There has been a subsidy to inshore fishermen for ten years or more—since 1950—and there has never yet been a subsidy paid to the shell fishermen. Arguments have taken place as between the Government and the supporters of the shell fishermen over this period of ten years. The Government have always held the view that the case had not been made on economic grounds that it was necessary for the Government to subsidise the shell fishing industry. A subsidy is not something which has to be given to everybody just because we give it to some people, and the case has not been made on economic grounds that it is necessary to give a subsidy to shell fishermen.
Over the years, there have been many debates not dissimilar to the one we have had this afternoon, and when the Fleck Committee was set up it was asked specifically to look into this question. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) referred to what the Fleck Committee has said, and, as the Committee knows, it did not recommend a subsidy. On the economic argument, the shellfish industry is a part of the inshore fishing industry, and we must ask ourselves to what extent shellfish are a vital part of the inshore catch. The inshore fishing industry receives a catching subsidy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin

and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), who moved the Amendment, made powerful speeches on behalf of the shell fishermen as individuals who are part of the inshore fishing fleet. A large number of them catch white fish as well, and they can draw a subsidy for the white fish part of their catches.
Many of the inshore fishermen do not catch shellfish at all, and there are a lot Who depend very largely on white fish for their income. It is true that there are quite a number of specialist shell fishermen who do not benefit from the white fish or herring subsidies, and it has been argued by several hon. Members that a subsidy should be introduced to assist this specialist section. In this case, the figures of production over the past few years—and here I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Grimsby, for they do not lead one to believe that what he fears is likely without a subsidy—tell a not unsatisfactory story.
We do not have profit and loss figures for this section of the industry, because, unlike others, where the amount of the subsidy is affected by profit and loss, we have not called for them, but the fact remains that the total landings of shellfish have increased from about 430,000 cwt. to over 550,000 cwt. over the last ten years. I know that this is not shared equally, so to speak, among all ports. A lot of this increase is made up of Nephrops of which large quantities have been caught in recent years. Landings of Norwegian lobsters, crabs and cockles have increased, whereas the landings of lobsters and mussels have remained comparatively steady. These figures do not seem to indicate that this section of the industry was declining through lack of success, which is the point about which the hon. Gentleman was anxious.
Moreover, shell fishermen have already got some measure of Government help, because this section receives the rebates on fuel, and is eligible for loans and grants for new vessels and new engines under the existing provisions, which we are proposing to extend in this Bill. Further, the necessary arrangements are being made for the inshore fishermen—including shell fishermen—to obtain loans for secondhand vessels, where suitable. This will be a help.
Moreover, shellfish enjoy a greater degree of tariff protection than does white fish. The tariffs on most forms of fresh shellfish amount to as much as 30 per cent. Therefore, although I agree that powerful arguments may be made to the contrary, it would not be right to say that the specialist shellfish sections of the inshore industry are devoid of any Government help or protection. These are facts which the Fleck Committee took into account at our special request. We specifically told it that all these arguments had been taking place in the House of Commons over the years, and we asked it to look at the matter and to give us its impartial advice. We said, "These are the views that we have held. You know the views of the shell fishermen. Go into this matter and advise us."
Paragraph 359 of the Fleck Committee Report says:
We are not satisfied however that a case has been made out for the introduction of a shellfish subsidy.
In the light of that Committee's confirmation of the policy adopted by the Government we should not think it right at this time, with the figures that we have available in relation to the amount of shellfish being caught, and viewing the matter against the background of the Bill, to grant special subsidies.
These arguments have been going on for many years, but we have not seen the end of subsidies for the fishing fleet as a whole. The Bill is the beginning of waning subsidies to the trawler fleets. The inshore fleet is in a somewhat different category, but nevertheless we hope to be able to run this down over a period too. This is not the moment at which we would think it right to take these permissive powers. We see no need, at present, for a shellfish subsidy. If, in the years ahead, the Government thought it right to pay a subsidy for shell fish we would immediately seek powers to do so. In view of the feelings expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I do not believe that we should find it difficult to obtain those powers.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: To a large extent I accept the argument which the right hon. Gentleman is advancing. The only point

on which I have some doubts concern the permissive powers. Whenever we have asked for any information about the economics of any section of the industry the right hon. Gentleman has been able to give us all that we wanted—even, in some cases, the losses per vessel per year. But the same amount of information does not seem to be available in respect of this section of the industry. That being the case, would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman accepted these permissive powers, so that if it was afterwards ascertained that the figures were against the shellfish industry he could exercise those powers, whereas if the figures were found to be in favour of the industry he would not have to use them?

Mr. Soames: We do not need permissive powers in order to discover the economic facts within the shellfish industry. I think that I carry the Committee with me when I say that it would not be right to seek permissive powers to pay a subsidy until the moment has come when the Government have decided so to do. These are the arguments which lead me to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Prior: If my right hon. Friend does not take these powers now, has he the necessary powers to introduce a subsidy for shellfish without requiring fresh legislation? Can he do it by way of Regulation?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. It would mean fresh legislation, but the Bill would not need to be of a considerable size.

Mr. Hoy: I find the Minister's reply very disappointing. His arguments are not very sound. I would remind the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) that we are dealing here not with a question of granting a subsidy to one section and not to another, but with the fact that a subsidy is being paid to every section of the fishing industry except this one.

Mr. Bullard: That is exactly my point. What the hon. Member is saying is not contrary to what I am saying.

Mr. Hoy: I only wanted to make it clear that every section—and not one—was receiving a subsidy, except this one.
The Minister said that we had not called for a balance sheet from the shellfish industry, and he argues that because we do not have a balance sheet we are unable to arrive at a very sound judgment in the matter. He says that in that case he is entitled to use figures to show that the catch is rising. He is aware that the distant-water fleet receives substantial subsidies, amounting to millions of pounds, without the provision of balance sheets. No balance sheets were produced to justify the payment of a subsidy to that fleet. The Minister said that the distant-water fleet had lost certain fishing grounds and that it might have to develop a new type of vessel, and that the fleet would be compensated by the payment of a subsidy, but no balance sheet was brought forward to underline the necessity for the payment of the subsidies.
We have only to look at the balance sheets and the dividends declared recently to know that it would have been exceptionally difficult to prove a case of need on the part of the distant water fleet. The Fleck Committee Report is always being quoted in this respect. Paragraph 160 of the Report says this about lobsters and crabs:
The fisheries for both lobsters and crabs are larger than before the war, and both species are found all round the coast, lobsters being of particular importance in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are said to be under-exploited stocks on the western coasts, and marketing and transport difficulties are the main obstacles to further expansion.
If that were the case the Minister might have paid a subsidy to this section of the industry, as he has done in the case of the distant-water fleet, so that it might exploit these underexploited areas and develop transport, and so get over the difficulties which are preventing expansion.
It is these areas—whether they be in Cornwall or in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan)—which are calling out for development of industry. If this situation exists the Minister, without calling for a balance sheet, ought to make it possible for these areas to be exploited and to deal with the transport problems.
I want the Minister to be aware of the feeling in the Committee on this

matter. This is a very small section of the industry. No one would pretend that it is a tremendously important part of the industry, but it is very important to those areas where it provides employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) did well to remind us of the part that these men are expected to play in the social life of our community. They are expected to face great dangers, and the past winter has given them and their families much cause for concern. I would have thought that the Government would go out of their way to make a gesture to these areas and to find a reason for assisting them, preserving them, and, where possible, expanding the industries from which they derive their livelihood.
In every possible way the argument in favour of the Amendment has been overwhelming. Not a single hon. Member, on either side of the Committee, has done other than support the Amendment. In view of the very disappointing reply of the Minister and the overwhelming case which has been made for the Amendment, my hon. Friends and I will be bound to divide the Committee on this issue. We believe that the Minister's argument has done nothing to meet the case we have made. That leaves us with no alternative but to divide the Committee. We shall watch with interest to see if the votes of hon. Members opposite follow their voices.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: When he spoke of the economic position of the shellfish industry, the Minister was probably aware that 40 per cent. of the crabs caught around our shores are caught by Yorkshire fishermen. There is a possibility that because they are Yorkshiremen they are good hard-headed businessmen and that could be a reason for their financial success.
Nevertheless, when the Minister compares the economic position of other sections of the fishing industry with the shellfish section, he should realise that, in spite of the subsidies given to some of the sections, as was reported in the Evening News on 13th December, 1961, a 12s. per share efficiency bid was let slip. It was a take-over bid by Sir Hugh Fraser of one of the very important sections of the industry.
We as a nation make a contribution to industries of this kind although they are making a profit. It does not behove the Minister to compare the economic position of the shellfish industry with that of the White fish industry. The shellfish industry needs looking into more deeply. It is essential to make it efficient. We import large quantities of shellfish. We should develop our industry so that it may be efficient and cope with the needs and supply the demands of the people for shellfish.
Most of these are family concerns. The Government are not very much interested in the large firms. I appreciated what was said by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), who spoke in favour of the Amendment. The farming industry gets plenty of subsidy from the Government. In that industry there are some large business firms, yet the small shell fishermen are not to be helped because it is thought that they make a profit. Figures are not published and, therefore, we are not sure what the profit is.
In Standing Committee we discussed the shellfish industry and what should be done about cleaning shellfish beds. We discussed whether money should be paid for that. We should develop the industry as a whole and help these people in small ports to maintain full employment in their areas. The amount of £50,000 in relation to the whole of the industry is very small. It would not be necessary for the whole amount to be used. It would not be necessary to grant all the money, but it could be there if it were needed.
The Minister ought to change his attitude towards the Amendment. He has been threatened by some of his hon. Friends that they will vote against him. He ought to accept their advice, apart from accepting the advice of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. We should make certain that the industry shall be efficient in future. It may run into the danger of overfishing certain of the grounds. That would lead to a reduction in the amount of shellfish later available to the nation. Looked at from that angle, it will be seen that we should make this grant. I hope that the Minister will change his mind and accept the Amendment. If he did, it would be for the benefit of the industry as a whole.

The Government are not entitled to give benefits to a large section of the fishing industry and leave out the smaller brother.

Commander Anthony Courtney: I find myself taking a contrary opinion to most hon. Members in the Committee and supporting the Minister in opposing the Amendment. The fact that I have no constituency interest in it may have something to do with that, for the majority of hon. Members present have a constituency interest. Both the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) based the first part of their argument in favour of the Amendment on the rather curious statement that when all the other sections have a subsidy the one section left out should also have it.

Mr. Wainwright: Would the hon. and gallant Member say that the flourishing farm should have no farming subsidy? Would he say that the flourishing section of the fishing industry should have no subsidy? I would probably go along with him in that argument.

Commander Courtney: If the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument he will see what I mean.
This is the weakest possible argument for the Amendment at a time when the national financial position should urge us all to resist subsidy wherever possible. I should have thought that more of my hon. Friends would have opposed this Amendment on those grounds.
The second argument advanced by the hon. Member for Leith went back to a paragraph of the Fleck Committee Report in controverting what the Minister has said and suggesting that the lobster and crab section needed a subsidy in order to develop and to provide all the fringe benefits described by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) as connected with a flourishing shellfish industry. May I remind the hon. Member for Leith of another reference to crabs and lobsters made in the Report?

Mr. Hoy: Before the hon. and gallant Member does so, may I be allowed to say that I do not think he could have heard the argument? The Minister said that he could not give a subsidy to this


section as it had not produced a balance sheet.

Mr. Soames: Mr. Soames indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy: That was partly the reason. I said that a subsidy had been granted to the distant water fleet and that section had never been asked to provide a balance sheet.

Commander Courtney: If I understood the hon. Member to say that the subsidy was necessary to the lobster and crab industry to facilitate its growth, I refer him to paragraph 359 of the Report, which says quite clearly:
we consider that … the development of the lobster and crab fisheries in particular is likely to proceed without the added stimulus of an operational subsidy.
The Minister based his argument largely on the Fleck Committee Report. In that Report, we have it clearly stated that the subsidy should be granted to all the other sections of the fishing industry and that the shellfish industry should be specifically left out. Although the arguments of the hon. Member for Grimsby appeal to me, they do not invalidate my right hon. Friend's arguments. I therefore oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Loughlin: Although in Committee I spoke at most of the sittings on practically every aspect of the fishing industry, I have not so far spoken on shellfish, because I know so little about it. I take the point of view expressed by the Minister by implication, namely, that before subsidies are paid to any industry or any section of an industry the need for the subsidy proposed to be paid should be clearly established. It is essential for the shellfish side of the industry to establish a case for subsidies on economic grounds.
It is of no great moment to me that subsidies are being paid to every other section of the industry, whether they make out an economic case or not. That is the Minister's policy. The Minister says that he opposes the proposed subsidy because an economic case has not been made out. It may well be true that an economic case has not been made out, but when I posed the question to the Minister he was not able to give the economic position of this section of the industry.
This is recommittal. Hon. Members on both sides have strongly expressed the view, not that the Minister should give subsidies to this section of the industry, but that he should take to himself permissive powers. That is the simple issue. If the case were being argued that the Minister should give subsidies to this section of the industry without this section being able to establish economic need, I should oppose it. However, hon. Members have not so urged. All hon. Members who have spoken, with the notable exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney), who has the saving grace of being able to advance most nasty arguments with the most pleasant smile, have opposed the Minister's point of view.
It is true that if the Minister took permissive powers this section of the industry would read into his action the almost automatic payment of subsidies to itself. However, if in taking permissive powers the Minister made the categorical statement from the Dispatch Box that, if it were proved that these subsidies were not economically justified to this section of the industry he would not exercise his permissive powers, this section of the industry could not expect anything to be done if the economic position did not justify it.
Providing that the Minister makes that statement, there is no earthly reason why he should not take these permissive powers to himself. We could get bogged down in an argument on the question whether certain other sections of the industry have made an economic case for the payment of very large subsidies. The Minister knows my view on that, because I have expressed it forcibly on a number of occasions.
5.15 p.m.
In this case we are dealing with an estimated amount of £50,000. The Minister may say that this figure is wrong. As far as I know, one firm, which at this stage shall be nameless, has certainly not made out a case on economic grounds for subsidies under the terms of the Bill. I estimate that this firm, by virtue of its extension in recent months, will receive in one full year £500,000 in subsidies under the Bill.
The Minister's arguments are not valid. He is merely being asked to take permissive powers. We shall certainly carry this matter to a Division. In view of the relatively little risk attaching to this series of proposals, it would be much better in the present political climate for the Minister not to embarrass so many of his hon. Friends by refusing to take their advice. No hon. Member has asked that the subsidy should be given automatically. Both sides of the Committee have merely asked the Minister to take permissive powers and apply them if necessary but, if it is not necessary, not to apply them. The Minister would grow in stature if he said at the Dispatch Box that he would accept the Amendments.

Sir David Robertson: Both sides of the Committee have made out a very strong case for action to be taken in regard to the shellfish side of the industry. Unlike the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), I was in shell fishing for a number of years. It was a very chancy job for fishermen. My company was at the selling end. I remember in the height of summer thousands of lobsters coming in from the Western Isles and other parts of North Scotland and being condemned because of the time taken in transport in very hot weather. The losses were so serious that my company decided to build a lobster pond in Billingsgate Market. We did so to find if we could keep lobsters alive by feeding them and keeping them in water which was circulated and aerated. We kept about 5,000 lobsters there for two years to prove it. This system was adopted in the Western Isles and in Orkney and elsewhere and it has proved successful. It is called lobster ponding. It takes care of the glut at a time of abundance and one is able to sell them later at a time of scarcity, particularly in the London banqueting season when lobsters are in high demand. When the situation was at its worst, before we started lobster ponding at Billingsgate Market, we paid all fishermen a minimum of 1s. a lb. on lobsters that arrived dead and could not be sold. We did so to try to keep them floating.
It is not good enough for the Government to brush this case aside and say that they will not do anything for the

little people who are operating all around our coasts, simply because no investigation has been carried out, except that related in the Fleck Report, which seems to me to have been a very superficial investigation. I urge the Minister, who is so outstanding, to accept the Amendment and take permissive powers. This would not mean that he would have to do anything. A three-months' investigation by the right people would disclose the facts. Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. or Price Water-house & Co. could do this in three months or less, I guarantee. The facts could be learned.
Nobody wants a subsidy to be given unless there is need. The Government did not need to ask the deep water people if they were in need. After losing thousands of miles of fishing ground, they were bound to be in need. Individual catches are down. Trawling overall is now showing an improvement, but some trawlers are not doing well. Their catches are considerably down on what they were before the curtailments took place.
The shellfish side of the industry is very important, particularly at this time. It would not do the Conservative Party much good to have it broadcast all over the place that we are giving subsidies to Associated Fisheries, the Ross Group, and all the others, but that we are turning our backs on the little fellow who is scratching a living on the coast of Sutherland. The Minister ought to take these powers and apply them if necessary, but not otherwise.

Mr. George Jeger: The Minister must be impressed by the arguments that have been put from both sides of the Committee. He has always given the impression of being a very reasonable Minister, and I am quite sure that while he is sitting there looking a little glum at the lack of support—except that from one of his hon. Friends, who has now gone away—he must be considering that the weight of opinion on all sides is very much in favour of his accepting this Amendment, and I hope that he will do so.
The hon. Member who supported him did so, I think, for the wrong reasons. He seemed to say that the cost would be much greater, but disregarded the total amount of subsidies and loans


envisaged by the Bill. He was prepared to swallow the camel but he strained at the gnat. He also seemed to disregard the fact that the total amount of £50,000 entailed by this Amendment would not be in addition to the global amount in the Bill but would be part of it only. Further, the Minister should remember that, if he accepted the Amendment, not even the whole £50,000 might be required.
The Minister seems to be missing a very good opportunity to encourage small small men to continue in business, and so to do a very good job for the country not only by providing shellfish for home consumption but by stimulating, in a small way, our export trade. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the following words in paragraph 160 of the Fleck Report:
Lobsters fetch a good enough price for air transport to be worth considering, and there is already a modest export of lobsters by air to the Continent
If that side was stimulated, our export trade could also be stimulated and increased.
The same paragraph states:
…the large import of canned crab (£2·7 million in 1959) shows that there is a good demand for the processed product if prices can be made competitive.
Prices may not be competitive, but the Fleck Report takes care of that, for it says, in the same paragraph:
It would of course be possible to argue that assistance would be justified "—
to this industry, of course:
on grounds of social need even if economic prospects were poor …".
Those of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies have an unanswerable case on the ground of social need.
I am quite sure that if the Minister studies the interests of this small section of the fishing industry, and the contribution it can make to our national economy by increasing exports—as well as providing the men with a sensible living in their own area—he will accept our Amendment on both the social and the economic grounds.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: We are all anxious to make progress, but if one feels, as I do, that the Under-Secretary of State for

Scotland and his right hon. Friends are wrong about this, it is right that one should say so while the matter is before the Committee.
Over a period of years I have made representations to my hon. Friend on behalf of the inshore fishermen who are engaged in shell fishing. The representations I made on the last occasion were very strongly supported by the Firth of Forth Fishermen's Association. I have not supported that Association all the way through the progress of this Bill, but I do so on this occasion.
I think that the Government would be making a big mistake if they were to allow this opportunity to pass to take powers—which may never be required. They have the chance to take powers to step in, if it proves necessary, to rescue a small but important section of the industry. In my constituency, there is at Johnshaven one of the great lobster ponds to Which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has referred. I have been there. I have seen the boxed lobsters coming in quickly by lorry from all the ports of North Scotland, from the Outer Islands and from Orkney and Shetland, and put straight into the ponds. It is a big industry. It may not need help at present but it has needed it in the past and could need it again in the future. I urge the Government to take these powers while they have the chance.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the points that have been made since he last spoke. In particular, I hope that he will reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who was very much to the point when he said that the Government cannot want to appear before the country as being prepared to guarantee hundreds of thousands of pounds to companies that are showing very substantial profits. In spite of the wage pause, one of those companies only two weeks ago increased its dividend quite substantially. If that company can receive Government money, one wonders why the smaller men, particularly those round the coast of Scotland—and the coast of Cornwall, and the West Coast—should be denied even a kind look.
It is all very well to quote the Fleck Report, but I remember that when we first discussed that Report a number of us expressed very serious concern about the effect of the Fleck Committee's recommendations on the inshore fleets. Scottish Members, in particular, pointed out that if the Report were adopted holus-bolus it might mean the closing of a large number of inshore ports in Scotland and a great diminution in the size of the fleet. The result was that the Secretary of State for Scotland later made a special announcement giving certain guarantees and promises to the inshore fleets.
If the Government could do that as a result of the arguments then advanced, surely it is not a bad thing to extend that principle and to say, "Here, once again, we feel that there is a good social case for at least taking the powers, so that if it should become necessary "—that is all we ask—"we can do something to help this section of the fleet."
The Minister dismissed that idea, and said that this section of the industry is doing quite well; that the value of the catch had increased by some £120,000 over a certain period—I am not sure what the period was. But he did not tell us by how much costs had gone up, and as we have not any balance sheets the figures do not mean much. The right hon. Gentleman said that, if necessary, a Bill could be pushed through and the payments made very quickly. Having had some experience of the House of Commons, I do not see things always going through as quickly as that. By the time the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and persuaded the Leader of the House to find time for the Bill to go through and, when it is through, for Parliametary time to be obtained to introduce the necessary Orders, a considerable period will have elapsed.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: My hon. Friend may recall that the Leader of the House said in 1945, when he was a candidate for the Western Isles constituency, that he wished to give special help to the lobster fishermen in that area.

Mr. Willis: I hope that that will make the Leader of the House amenable to

our arguments and that it will persuade him of the necessity to introduce a Bill for that purpose. Anyway, surely the Minister would be in a much better position if he accepted these permissive powers. They do not bind him to anything but merely allow him to do something should the occasion arise.
Even if we were asking for money we should not be asking for very much. After all, we have spent twice as much on 1A Kensington Palace. Apparently, that is more important than saving the livelihood of fishermen in the scattered and more remote areas which have tended to become depopulated. I should have thought that any Government who were planning their policies correctly would seriously consider the arguments adduced today, for it is important to keep these communities going, particularly around the shores of Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman should remember that we have a big emigration problem already and the Government are not doing much about that—except that every time we lose a few thousand people from Scotland we are told that there are an increasing number of jobs in the pipeline. Unfortunately they never come out of the pipeline. The Under-Secretary knows the tragic story of the ports all around Scotland. He has seen them, just as I have. He must be aware of the way villages slowly become depopulated. He must know of once flourishing villages that became practically completely depopulated but which have since opened up again. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland knows the truth of what I say. Does the Minister want this pitiful tale to continue; this pitiful story of men and women driven from villages to seek their livelihood elsewhere? Will the Minister not take powers to do something about this? Does the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) want to say something?

Mr. Loughlin: He dare not.

Mr. Willis: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say something he should get up and do so.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I have not said a word yet. I had intended to support the Amendment, but if the hon. Member does not want me to do so I will refrain from doing so.

Mr. Willis: We are indeed anxious to have the hon. Member's support. It must have been one of his hon. Friends seated near to him who made certain remarks.

Mr. Loughlin: I heard an hon. Member say something about Hyde Park.

Mr. Willis: I dare say that many of the people in Hyde Park would not understand what was being said in the parts of the country to which we are referring.
As I was saying, I am sure that the Minister does not want this tragic story to continue. We are merely asking him to accept these permissive powers so that, if necessary, and if the figures prove that the need exists, he is able, without coming to the House—except to get the Order—to do something. After all, the Amendment is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and I should have thought that the least the Minister should do is to promise to look at the whole matter again, perhaps with the result that something might be done in another place. The right course for him. however, would be to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: In his remarks the Minister emphasised certain points and raised certain doubts. He did not, however, give any real answers to support those doubts and it would be wrong to allow the impression to go out that the Minister has made any sort of acceptable case.
The only basis on which the Amendment would apply, a permissive basis, is modest enough. It would apply only in places where there is ample economic evidence that there is need for some sort of help, such help as is being offered to the more prosperous sections of the industry in the great ports. The Minister did not answer that argument in any of his remarks. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, when he refers to dual purpose fishing, to consider the plight of the island of Barra and, particularly, its satellite island of Vatersay which, in their fishing activity, are dependent almost entirely on lobster fishing. If he will do so he will see that the record in this area is that of the highest emigration in the British Isles.
Emigration has economic reasons in 99 per cent. of cases. In this area, in ten

years, there has been a 25 per cent. depopulation. Are these not economic as well as social arguments? This is in a community which is almost entirely formed of seamen and lobster fishermen. The Minister said that many of these fishermen could fish for white fish when they were not fishing for lobsters. The right hon. Gentleman has been wrongly advised if he thinks that they can do that, for his remarks are absolutely incorrect for many of these people.
Such Outer Islands areas, which are almost wholly dependent on lobster fishing, cannot find a market for white fish because they do not have the means for preserving, processing, marketing, or transporting. They are, therefore, thrown back entirely on to the procedures outlined by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). They must get them to the mainland alive or into the lobster ponds until they can be marketed, just as the hon. Member described. They cannot do that with white fish and they must, therefore, be full-time lobster fishermen.
As I pointed out earlier, they can fish only for a certain number of months in the year in western areas because of weather and climatic conditions. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the depopulation figures in many of the areas which are most dependent on lobster fishing, he will find that the social and economic arguments apply equally in favour of this Amendment.
The House of Commons and this Committee have a reputation for justice, especially when we are discussing minorities, the downtrodden and the bottom dog. We can argue politics until the cows come home, or until the lobsters do not come in—but that sense of justice lies deep within the heart of every hon. Member, especially in regard to minorities. The Minister has made out no case whatever for excluding this poorer section of the fishing community. Time and again the hon. Members behind him have supported the Amendment. Only one spoke against it and he did not really understand the problem.
As one of my hon. Friends said, the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney), happily swallowed the camel and choked, just as happily, over the gnat. He also


swallowed the Minister and choked over twenty back benchers. Perhaps I might put it this way: he found it difficult to digest the lobster when he was quite able to swallow a shark. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East was wholly wrong when he argued as if the Amendment would be adding about £50,000. We cannot do that in this Committee and the hon. Member knows it. If he does not, he should know it. We are, after all, talking only about an allocation within the sum which is already accepted. If he can swallow the whole, it should not be difficult—in fact it would be almost impossible—not to swallow the parts of the whole.
I hope that the Minister will consider this matter again as a human and social, as well as a purely economic matter. If he cannot accept the whole of the economic argument, he should at least accept the argument in favour of common justice for these people.

Mr. Soames: I realise that many hon. Members who represent fishing ports which depend to a considerable extent on shell fishing are anxious that the shell fishermen should be included in the subsidy. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who, I know, looks at this matter in an impartial manner, have spoken, but I think that the case has been exaggerated to some extent. We have had a picture presented of many little inshore fishing ports in respect of which this payment on shellfish will make all the difference between survival and collapse. As I said earlier, my case is that, in view of the background to the argument on this issue, which has been going on since 1950, as to whether a subsidy to shell fishermen should be paid, it would not be right for the Government to take powers to pay subsidies to anyone unless they intended to pay them.
I should like to give some figures concerning the different types and values of fish caught by inshore fishing. Taking a five-year average, 1955 to 1959, the value of herring caught in England and Wales has dropped from £912,000 to £594,000 in 1961.
I agree that there are other shellfish, such as shrimps, whelks, cockles, periwinkles and others, for which the figures are not so good, but hon. Members on both sides have referred mainly to lobsters and crabs. In round figures, the average value of crabs caught between 1955 and 1959 was £280,000 compared with £292,000 in 1961; the value of lobsters caught increased from £220,000 to £293,000; and the value of Norway lobsters caught increased from £28,000 to £112,000.
These are not figures which lead the Government to feel that it is necessary to give a subsidy to the shellfish industry, which has not been given hitherto. While subsidies have been given to other sections of the industry, I repeat what I have said before, namely, that this is a part of the inshore fishing industry as a whole. Only a small part of it does not get the subsidy from the white fish side of the inshore fishing industry. Therefore, since, in my view, the economic situation is not such as to warrant an extra subsidy being given at this time, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Temple: My right hon. Friend has referred to an additional subsidy. As I understand it, what is asked for is a part of the subsidy which is being given in respect of shellfish. Would my right hon. Friend clear up that point?

Mr. Soames: That would mean taking a subsidy from someone else. That is not what we intend to do.

Mr. McAdden: My right hon. Friend has sown some doubt in my mind. He quoted figures for lobsters and crabs. As he may know, those in my constituency are more interested in cockles, which, my right hon. Friend indicated, were doing rather badly. Are they doing badly?

Mr. Soames: The average value of the catch of cockles from 1955 to 1959 was £67,987. In 1961, it was £90,400.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: The 1959 figures given in the Fleck Report do not square with the figures which the Minister has given.
I wish to revert to the main argument. The Minister argued that, if the industry wanted a subsidy, it had to prove the need for it. All that I was saying was


that the distant-water trawler fleet received substantial subsidies without producing balance sheets. I went on to deal with the argument about developing the industry itself. In view of the overwhelming desire of the Committee that the Minister should give assistance to this very small industry, I should have thought that he would accede to the Committee's request. With the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney), whose argument was that he did not have any of these interests in his constituency, there has been unanimity in the Committee on this subject.

Commander Courtney: The object of my argument was to refute both arguments of the hon. Member.

Mr. Hoy: It was obvious that the hon. and gallant Gentleman completely misunderstood my arguments. That is always a danger when one comes in halfway through a debate and hears only half of it. That is why the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not understand the argument.
We think that the case for social justice for this small section of the community is overwhelming. As the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said, what we propose to do here is to help the small men. That the Minister refuses to do, and therefore we shall have to go into the Division Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 210.

Division No. 144.]
AYES
[5.48 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marshall, Douglas


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mason, Roy


Awbery, Stan
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Millan, Bruce


Baird, John
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Milne, Edward


Beaney, Alan
Hannan, William
Mitchison, G. R.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
Monslow, Walter


Benson, Sir George
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Moody, A. S.


Blackburn, F.
Hayman, F. H.
Morris, John


Blyton, William
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Moyle, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Neal, Harold


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Bowles, Frank
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oliver, G. H.


Boyden, James
Hilton, A. V.
Oram, A. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Holman, Percy
Oswald, Thomas


Brockway, A. Fenner
Holt, Arthur
Owen, Will


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pargiter, G. A.


Bullard, Denys
Hoy, James H.
Paton, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pavitt, Laurence


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Callaghan, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, Frederick


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pentland, Norman


Chapman, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Prentice, R. E.


Cliffe, Michael
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Prior, J. M. L.


Crosland, Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jeger, George
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Randall, Harry


Deer, George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rankin, John


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Reid, William


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Donnelly, Desmond
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Driberg, Tom
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lawson, George
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Royle, Charles (Salford, Surrey)


Evans, Albert
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Short, Edward


Finch, Harold
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fletcher, Eric
McCann, John
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacColl, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Forman, J. C,
McInnes, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, Jonn (Wallsend)
Small, William


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McLeavy, Frank
Sorensen, R. W.


Gilmour, Sir John
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, Archie
Steele, Thomas


Greenwood, Anthony
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marsh, Richard
Stodart, J. A.




Stonehouse, John
Wainwright, Edwin
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Stones, William
Warbey, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Weitzman, David
Winterbottom, R. E.


Swain, Thomas
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Taverne, D.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Whitlock, William
Zilliacus, K.


Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Wilkins, W. A.



Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Willey, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Mr. Redhead and


Tomney, Frank
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Dr. Broughton.


Wade, Donald
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton


Allason, James
Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, N.


Arbuthriot, John
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Morgan, William


Balniel, Lord
Green, Alan
Nabarro, Gerald


Barber, Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Barlow, Sir John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Barter, John
Gurden, Harold
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Osbom, John (Hallam)


Berkeley, Humphry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Craham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Bishop, F. P.
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Bossom, Clive
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hendry, Forbes
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hiley, Joseph
Pitt, Miss Edith


Brewis, John
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pott, Percivall


Brooman-White, R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hocking, Philip N.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Bryan, Paul
Hollingworth, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hopkins, Alan
Rawlinson, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Hornby, R. P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Rees, Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Renton, David


Channon, H. P. G.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Chataway, Christopher
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Roots, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Ronald


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Seymour, Leslie


Cleaver, Leonard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Collard, Richard
Jackson, John
Shaw, M.


Cooper, A. E.
James, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Corfield, F. V.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Smithers, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Jennings, J. C.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Coulson, Michael
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Speir, Rupert


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Crowder, F. P.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cunningham, Knox
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Storey, Sir Samuel


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Studholme, Sir Henry


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


d'Av'gdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


de Ferranti, Basil
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leavey, J. A.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Leburn, Gilmour
Teeling, Sir William


Doughty, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


du Cann, Edward
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Duncan. Sir James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Longbottom, Charles
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Eden, John
Loveys, Walter H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McAdden, Stephen
Vane, W. M. F.


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Walder, David


Farr, John
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)
Walker, Peter


Fell, Anthony
MacLeod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Finlay, Graeme
McMaster, Stanley R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fisher, Nigel
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maddan, Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Freeth, Denzil
MagInnis, John E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Gammans, Lady
Mannlngham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Woollam, John


Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil



Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,
Mr. Whitelaw and




Mr. Noble.

Questioned proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hoy: Before we part with the Clause, I want to say how grateful I am to the Committee for that ready response to what I regard as a very good Amendment. I am sorry that our pressure did not prevail, but at least the small men will know that we have stood by them when the Government deserted them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(GRANTS TO WHITE FISH AUTHORITY.)

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, in page 6, line 45, at the end, to insert:
and for furthering approved schemes of cooperative research within the industry ",
I hope that on this Amendment, which deals with research, to which reference has been made time and time again both on Second Reading and in Committee, the Government will not only express sympathy, but will agree to do something. I hope that what has been done on a previous Amendment shows that even hon. Members behind the Minister desire the Government to give firmer and more decisive answers.
When I moved a similar Amendment in Standing Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he would examine it and consider what could be done. He said:
The case made out is something with which we are in general agreement.
There was agreement in Committee that we needed somehow to co-ordinate research, to encourage co-operation, to encourage new organisation and, above all, to encourage development. Although the Minister argued that there was little to be gained by adding the words that we proposed, he said:
On the other hand, while we have been considering the Amendment, some doubt has been expressed as to whether, in fact, Ministers would be able to grant aid to every possible form of co-operative research in the industry and there may be an advantage in looking at the wording of the Clause again to make sure that we have not left anything out which we would like to be included."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 12th December, 1961; c. 138–9.]
In other words, the Minister admitted in Standing Committee that we had made

a case and he agreed to reconsider the matter.
6.0 p.m.
I have argued throughout that anything concerning research is important to the industry. If we are to develop the industry and to give it aid through grants to the White Fish Authority, and if we give aid to the Herring Board and other organisations, it is right and proper that the Government should insist upon provision for research. In our Amendment we use the words:
and for furthering approved schemes of cooperative research within the industry".
I have referred time and time again in Standing Committee to the sections of the Fleck Report which deals with research. At paragraph 292, the Fleck Committee stated:
Research into matters affecting the fishing industry is largely either in the hands of or financed by Government Departments, for the diffuse nature of the industry and its competing sectional interests have prevented the growth of co-operative or private industrial research on any large scale.
Lord Fleck was not only Chairman of that Committee, but was a distinguished scientist and industrialist. He is still doing invaluable public service in another place and his comments on research must be taken seriously. In the chapter dealing with research and development, he pointed out how co-operative or private industral research had been prevented.
I could give many quotations from the Fleck Reort, but I do not want to weary the Committee. In paragraph 293, however, the Fleck Committee stated:
Nevertheless, we are impressed by the fact that responsibility for fisheries research is divided among such a variety of agencies; and it seems to us doubtful whether under the existing arrangements relative priorities can be adequately assessed in the allocation of public funds for different purposes.
In the same paragraph, the Fleck Committee went on to say:
Nevertheless, we believe that there is room for more effective co-ordination of effort in this field.
I could go on repeating Government statements and show how their views on research have been confirmed by the Fleck Committee and in their own White Paper, which I discussed in Standing Committee when I argued that we should


have a research council. I admit that we are now discussing a much narrower point. We are discussing really how to encourage the White Fish Authority to encourage co-operative research within the industry. I would have preferred to have a research council co-ordinating the work. I know that the Government, through the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, gave a favourable answer in Committee, and I know that he and, I am certain, his Minister are both sympathetic to my main argument.
We should like to see the White Fish Authority, in the absence of a research council, giving grants for this purpose. I think that I shall have the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) in sympathy with me. If we can give grants for the making of ice and for factories, which he condemned on Second Reading, it is surely much more important that we should enable the White Fish Authority, if they so deem it—it is not obligatory—to stimulate research and co-operative effort.
The Government have said all along that they are anxious to do something about scientific research. In their own White Paper, The Fishing Industry, the Minister will remember these words:
The Government agree with the Fleck Committee as to the importance of research and experimental work and propose to develop this considerably and make extra financial provision for it.
The White Paper goes on to say:
This arrangement will be reviewed to see whether it could be strengthened.
Here is an opportunity for the Government to do something positive. Here is an opportunity for the Government to accept a limited Amendment, even though they argue, as they have argued throughout the Bill, that there is no case for a research council of the type that I sought to get when I moved a new Clause. The pattern of research, represented by our research councils, has grown into our lives and has served us well. I think that in the absence of such a council, even if it is accepted at a later stage when the Government have examined the co-ordination of research, this is a limited way in which the Government could accept our Amendment.
I do not see how the Amendment would restrict the work of the Government or of the White Fish Authority. Here is an opportunity where the Government could say, "We agree with the Fleck Committee. Something must be done. We must encourage research." I have no wish, as I have always argued in Committee, to criticise what has been done; but there needs to be a greater effort. I think that here and there we have fallen down. This, again, has been confirmed by the Committee which investigated our research facilities. I accept that we have conducted some very fine research in many of our establishments.
I pay tribute to the officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to others who have not only conducted research, but have disseminated that research in excellent publications to the interests concerned. I pay tribute to institutions like Torry and the institutions in our universities where important marine and biological researches have been conducted; the work of D.S.I.R. and other bodies which have co-operated with the industry at Grimsby, Hull and elsewhere; and to those which are conducting not only scientific research but economic research.
Despite all that has been done within the industry, the time has now come when there must be some attempt to have co-operation and a further measure of co-ordination. That is what our Amendment is seeking to do. We are arguing, as I have argued very often, that research is so diffuse that a lack of co-ordinated effort has resulted and there has been too much duplication. That is why we want to make an attack ion it, even from a limited point of view, in the Amendment. I have argued that we need a co-operative effort of research in the industry, and the White Fish Authority is an excellent body to do the job.
We need it for another reason. We have a shortage of skilled scientific manpower. The Government are still too complacent about this. On Thursday we are to debate the position of our universities and their development which, in turn, will affect the supply of scientific manpower. We have, I believe, only a limited amount of scientific manpower, however well-qualified, in relation to some other countries. We


must see to it that our manpower is used wisely, that its work is not dissipated and that there is no duplication, if we are to make the best use of our scientific manpower in the fishing industry.
The scientists and technologists who are engaged on research in the various institutes and universities, and the various bodies connected with private industry, must be able to co-ordinate their efforts. I hope that every hon. Member opposite who supported me on this in principle in Standing Committee, like the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall), will support me again. I think that the Minister, and certainly the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, has agreed with me in principle. It is all very well for the Government to make a gesture, however. We want them to do something about this. It is all very well saying that the White Fish Authority and other bodies can do research and that they have responsibility. We want that put into the Bill.
The industry needs more research. It faces a great challenge. That is why we are giving more aid to all sections of it, except the shell fishermen—and I think that we could even encourage research in shell fishing. That, however, would not be a matter for the White Fish Authority under the terms of the Amendment.
Our fishing industry is hoping to make a challenge—but it also faces a serious challenge from foreign competition. It may have to seek fishing grounds in more distant and warmer waters. Articles and documents by those studying the fishing industry say that it may well be that Western European countries will have to develop these areas.
In view of what the future holds, research must be done. I know that it is already being done by bodies like the Institute of Oceanography. Our industry is faced by a challenge. It can meet it, but only through a co-operative effort, including research. Bodies like the White Fish Authority are unable to do the job of research. This is a fundamental part of the fishing industry. It is something we must not neglect.
While it was important to have virtually a major debate on the last Amendment, scientific research in the fishing industry is fundamental. It must continue

and it must develop because of the challenge the industry is facing from foreign competitors. Those competitors are pumping much money and effort into research.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he is not only sympathetic, that he does not only agree in principle, but that he will accept the Amendment. It would in no way restrict the Bill, but it would enable the White Fish Authority to provide schemes of assistance for the co-operative research which is needed.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has said, we had more than one long debate on research in the Standing Committee. We found that there is little, if anything, between the two sides on this matter. We are all concerned to see that the organisation of research in this industry—which is in a more difficult position than some, since it is split up into a number of small units—is not, in consequence, unduly weakened.
We had a debate in Standing Committee on an Amendment in the same terms as the Amendment now moved by the hon. Gentleman. At the end of that debate, I gave an assurance that, if the Amendment were not pressed, I would look at this matter with our advisers to make quite sure that we did not make the mistake of leaving the White Fish Authority without the power of grant-aiding co-operative research. I think that that is the narrow point that hon. Members wanted to ensure was covered when they put their Amendments down both in Standing Committee and now.
I have been in touch with the hon. Member and I am now able to assure the Committee that the White Fish Authority already has the power, set down quite clearly in the 1951 Act. Therefore, there is no need for us to repeat those words in the Bill. The power is there, not only for the Authority itself to spend money on research or experiment, but to make funds available for others, and I am advised that it also covers research carried on by others on a co-operative basis.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman has been very conciliatory, but the 1951 Act does not say anything about cooperative research. Such research may develop later, but it is not specifically mentioned.

Mr. Vane: There is a general power which, 1 am told, covers all forms of research. Since the power is already there, with a meaning which is perfectly clear, it is better not to start trying to specify particular sorts of research with, perhaps, the implication that, if a certain type of research is not cited in the Bill, it is not intended to be covered.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his Amendment, because there is no question about the power. I know that he feels very strongly about this, and he is not alone in that. We all feel that we should do all we can, not only to provide the means but also to provide the encouragement. But this Amendment would not add anything to the power of the Authority. As the power is already there, it would be a mistake to specify it again.

Sir D. Robertson: I am glad that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) referred to the magnificent services which are available to the fishing industry at Torry, at the headquarters of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and at the Institute of Oceanography, covering almost every aspect, including trawler building and nets. But it would almost look as if we were ungrateful to Torry.
I have worked with Torry since the end of the First World War. Although I am not in the fishing industry now—having left it when I came to the House of Commons twenty-three years ago—I keep in touch with Torry and recently spent a happy day there. The people there are first class, and we do not need anything more. They advise on the latest and best means of freezing fish at sea. They played a tremendous part in helping the Mars Company in the construction of its great frozen fish trawler. "Junella", launched a few days ago. They were in consultation with Associated Fisheries over its big trawler, the "Lord Nelson", which is a combined freezing and fishing trawler.
This wonderful institution is ready and willing to help us. I shall see the people there in a week or two. They are experimenting in the defrosting of fish. We live in an age of frozen fish, but the merchants still like fresh fish to handle, and they will get it. A machine largely developed at Torry is available, together with other competing methods.
One can have too many organisations. Sometimes I feel that the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board are fifth wheels to the coach. I remember the fishing industry when only very small departments of the Ministries in Whitehall and Edinburgh were able to do many of the things which these boards do now. The one thing we cannot afford to do is to spend money which is not essential to be spent.
These cases are almost applications of Parkinson's Law. The White Fish Authority is created and it grows—as they all grow—far too big. I am told that there are far too many people in these organisations, wasting public money. Now the White Fish Authority is asked to take on research, although it cannot help the industry in any way.
Torry has been in existence since the latter end of the First World War. I met its staff then, and froze fish with them in a basement of Billingsgate Market in 1921, to see the effect. They are in touch with research in the United States and with other nations on fishery matters.
There is one very important matter, much more important than any additional research, and that is, where we are to fish? That is the basic problem. I said it on Second Reading of this Bill. I have been saying it since 1939, and I shall go on saying it. We have overfished the grounds. That is the reason Why white fish men have taken to salmon fishing. We are overfishing grounds rapidly to extinction and we have to find fresh grounds. That is what is urgently needed. There are miles and miles of fishing off both the east and west coasts of South America. There, there are rich fishing grounds. Let research be done on that matter. I know that there are talks going on between the Ministry and the industry to find grounds for expedition fishing. There is an emergency.
It is more a question of investigation than of research, but it is something


which should be done. To give the White Fish Authority a research department within its own organisation seems to me to be wholly unnecessary.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to quarrel with the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), nor do I want to criticise any of the research organisations, but while the hon. Gentleman was talking I could not help but remember the post-war period when our trawling industry was, quite rightly, re-equipping, but made the mistake of re-equipping at that time with traditional trawlers.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are a number of primary factors to look at when thinking of research. First, we have to think in terms of where the new fishing waters are to be, and expeditionary research is of vital importance if we are to achieve the object of making this industry viable in the next ten years. I do not want to evoke smiles from the Government Front Bench, but we spent a considerable time talking about waters to which our ships would have to go during the next few years, and about overfishing, to which the hon. Gentleman has made some reference. After having determined the fishing waters we shall have to determine the types of ships to go to those waters, and the waters themselves, to some extent, will determine the types of ships which we shall have to build.
I am not decrying in any way the effort which the existing research organisation has made, even though I do pinpoint this salient fact, that the real problem is the error which we made in the immediate post-war period in the construction of our trawlers. But I do not see why, if one or two firms get together and decide to carry out one or two projects of a research character which would be of value to the whole of the industry, the White Fish Authority should not to some extent finance the research in that direction. I hope that some of the private companies in the industry will continue to foot the bill for their own research, but there may be circumstances in which this assistance may be desirable or necessary.
I am glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has told the Committee tonight that there is no need, in practice, for

this Amendment to be made to the Clause, but I would make this plea to the hon. Gentleman. I know that we can have a sort of political defence mechanism about this word "co-operative" or "co-operation." I do not think that there is any political connotation in it at all, but I should like to see the Minister and the White Fish Authority stimulating to some extent cooperation in the fishing industry. Those of us who have any association with it know that this industry is particularly individualistic.
If, for instance, we could persuade skippers to pool their ideas on the correct parts of the fishing grounds to go to, that would be an improvement to the industry. I am not criticising the skippers. I have argued this before. There is no selfishness in this. Knowledge acquired by a skipper is passed on from father to son. In my view, that is part of the capital of a fisherman. Therefore, there is no selfishness in his refusal to disseminate information which he acquires. No one asks anyone else in any other industry to spread his capital amongst his competitors. However, at the same time, I think that it would be, in some instances, an advantage to the fishermen themselves if there were greater dissemination by the skippers of information about fishing grounds.
I am particularly pleased that the Minister was able to assure the Committee that the intent of the Amendment may be achieved, without our making the Amendment itself.

Commander Courtney: I should like to support the spirit of the Amendment, and to echo many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). I particularly liked his expression "expeditionary research". I feel that the urgency of asking the Minister to pay, perhaps, greater attention to this kind of research is highlighted by the international competition which we now face, and which I mentioned in Standing Committee. We are very inclined to be rather parochial in our thinking, and generally seldom mention the great degree of competition arising from overseas, more particularly, of course, from the Communist countries.
I wonder whether the Committee realises that the Soviet Union plans a


gross total of takings of fish in 1965 of over 3½ million tons. I wonder whether the Committee appreciates—this has a bearing on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D, Robertson)—that this very day the Russian fleet is now off the west coast of Africa, on the ocean shelf, not only investigating those new grounds but fishing, too, and with long-distance factory ships of which they plan to build more in East Germany during the next five years for this sort of purpose. I suggest that this underlines the necessity for some urgency in this matter of research.
On the question of expeditionary research, I should like to touch on one side of the matter that has not yet, so far as I know, been touched on, and that is the possible use of our present long-distance and middle-water fleets in conjunction with shore refrigerating establishments and processing plants on the west coast of Africa—Nigeria itself—so that processed fish might be carried from there to the markets of this country. That is explicitly left out from the Bill, I see, by the fact that the money available for research is for projects in the United Kingdom. I should like to feel however, that the Government would cast their eyes farther afield and perhaps develop this idea of expeditionary research.
I was recently in Morocco—I must admit, on other business—when I was able to visit two or three of the ports, and, in particular, Mogador and Agadir, and it struck me that in the warm Mauritanian fishing grounds we might establish, in collaboration with wet fish catchers, refrigeration and processing bases, in conjunction with the Moroccan Government.
I am sure that there is a great deal to be done in this respect. We have an advantage over our Communist competitors in that we are able to go ashore and establish such processing establishments, whereas the Communists, for reasons best known to themselves, are notoriously unwilling to go ashore. In that way they have greater costs in remaining afloat in those far distant fishing grounds which they are exploiting. I urge the Minister to

look at this matter and give it some of the urgent attention which has been reflected in the debate on this Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Vane: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) spoke about research within the United Kingdom, but research can be done anywhere provided it is for the benefit of the United Kingdom industry. Furthermore, I should like to make it clear that any form of co-operative research within the industry can be given financial support now by the Authority, and the Government can give grants to the Authority in respect of such expenditure. I think that this covers the point which the hon. Member made and also covers the Amendment.

Mr. George Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on that a little further? The Fleck Report says that additional funds should be provided for these purposes. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the additional funds are already there for such schemes and that the only thing required is the will to expend them? Will he give an undertaking that even if he has not provided more money he is providing far greater efficiency and drive in order that the money may be expended and the research projects co-ordinated and not continued in isolation?

Mr. Vane: I assure the hon. Member that we are satisfied. He will be asked to approve an Order which I am sure will have his support.

Mr. Peart: The purpose of the Amendment was not to encourage us to indulge ourselves in Parkinson's Law. It was to try to avoid duplication. My whole case in moving the Amendment was that we needed co-operative research in the industry to avoid duplication. In other words, the Amendment was designed to fulfil the spirit of the Fleck Committee recommendation. I disagree with the view that we do not need research in directions other than that mentioned. The Fleck Committee, in paragraph 297 of its Report said:
There is, therefore, scope for research and development on many fronts …
and went on to argue the need for cooperation.
I accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about his advisers having looked carefully at this matter. He has given us a careful answer and he says that the White Fish Authority already has the power, but the question is whether it has the will. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). If the debate stimulates not only the Authority, but also the Government, to review carefully once more the administration of research and to consider whether there is need for a major change in the structure, I should be satisfied. I believe that we have had that assurance and, because of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said on this and previous occasions about the Government looking into the whole administration of research in the industry, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Loughlin: I presume on the patience of the Committee to say a few words on the Clause. I am a little worried by the reference in the Clause to the powers relating
to the provision, acquisition, equipment and operation of plants for processing white fish …
This must be looked at with particular care. I do not want to see the Minister spending money on building of plants for processing fish. There is adequate provision already for all types of processing throughout the industry in Britain.
I have given this matter particularly careful thought, because when we were considering ice-making plants, to which the Clause applies, we accepted that it might be necessary to have these powers and to relate them to the very small ports. I considered whether a case could be made out for processing plants at small ports, but I cannot see how it can be possible to make out a case for the expenditure of money on processing plants other than ice-making and defreezing plants. The difficulty about the Clause is the wide definition of "processing". In looking at this subsection, will the Minister be particularly careful that he is not unnecessarily duplicating matters? I ask him to assure the Committee

that these powers will be used sparingly and only where it can be clearly established that they should be used.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I shall have to ask the Minister to do something rather different from what my hon. Friend advised. One of the things for which we have been clamouring in my constituency in particular is an outlet for processed white fish and herring at the nearest points to the points of catching. Our fishermen have too often had to cross the whole of the South Minch or the North Minch to find a market and by the time they have done that and lost the fishing time and paid the transportation costs, it has too often not been worth while landing the catch at the processing price they can obtain at the mainland ports.
We have been asking for the establishment on the island of Barra and Scalpay in Harris—traditional herring grounds in an area with the longest herring fishing season in the world—of processing plants so that the fishermen can concentrate on their own job of catching and landing the fish as quickly as possible.

Mr. Loughlin: What kind of processing has my hon. Friend in mind? Is he thinking of canning, curing, kippering machine plus curing kilns?

Mr. MacMillan: My hon. Friend must be thinking of something rather different from what we are asking. We are talking in terms of reduction of fish for oil and fish meal, for smoking, freezing, and so on. This is what the Herring Board is prepared to do in its own field in the larger centres and is doing very efficiently. We welcome the way it has done it. If it were not for the Herring Industry Board, goodness knows where we should have found an outlet for a great deal of the catch. When the old traditional markets for cured herring in the Baltic and Russia disappeared for political and other reasons there was no great amount of processing until the Herring Industry Board—and, in other areas, pioneers like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson)—started to establish fish processing plants.
For many years there was no cured herring outlet. The Herring Industry Board then set up plant at Wick, Storno-way, and so on. Fishermen could then


bring in catches of, say, 300 to 400 crans a day to a plant and the Board has been prepared to take them over at a known price, even if it is not always the price that the fishermen want.
We would like to see places like Castle Bay, in Barra, where they used to land the finest early herrings in the world, herrings for which there used to be a tremendous demand—not least in America—restored. We would like to see ports like Loehboisdale and Scalpay restored, because these were once busy places which employed almost all the male population of the area, and many of the women, too.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, West (Mr. Loughlin) is at one with me on this. We would like fish processing plants in these areas. There is no question of duplication here. The Herring Board and White Fish Authority refuse to go in because they cannot, they say, operate on a large enough scale. I would not prevent anybody who was enterprising enough to want to go into these places from doing so. I would be sorry if assistance was not given to enterprising people who were prepared to go to these outlying places. I have already advocated a Government policy of differential inducements to people prepared to go to difficult areas of persistent unemployment and areas of special geographical difficulty where costs are higher than in the more centrally situated areas.
I know that this suggestion runs contrary to the traditional policies of Governments of both parties; but the time will come when they will agree that the only way to solve unemployment in these areas will be to offer additional special inducements to people who are enterprising enough to go to these distant places and set up processing plants even at extra cost.
I hope that I have not misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West.

Mr. Loughlin: There is no quarrel between us. This Clause does not relate to the herring industry, but to white fish.

Mr. MacMillan: I am aware of that. I used the familiar herring industry as an illustration and example. We are concerned with reviving these places and reviving an interest in all kinds of fish—white fish, herring and

lobster. We have already had evidence of the neglect of these areas, and evidence of the Government's intention further to neglect them by omitting them from the benefits which other sections of the white fishing industry are to receive.
Processing plants are, in some ways, all the more important for white fish. It is not worthwhile these men fishing for white fish—apart from catching what they require for their own domestic needs and the needs of the neighbouring villages—because by the time they transport relatively small quantities of white fish across the South or North Minch the catch is a dead loss to them. It is essential that processing plants be set up as near as possible to the catching points in the islands.
Lobsters can be sent long distances, because they are transported alive. There is no need for them to be processed before sending them to, say, Billingsgate. But the processing of white fish or herring to which I have referred must be carried out quickly and locally if the industry is to be saved. If anybody turns up in the Outer Hebrides and decides to set up a processing plant, I hope that he will be given more encouragement than is given to the man who proposes to set up a plant to duplicate one in a location which is easier to reach.

Mr. Vane: I do not think that there is any conflict between the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). I am sure that we are right in drawing this Clause widely, but I think that most of us have the small ports in mind in this connection. The White Fish Authority is most unlikely to support ventures when there is not a good case made out. Nor is it likely to embark on a venture of this sort in competition with somebody who is there. It is our intention to fill in the gaps, and the Herring Industry Board has the same power. This is to put the White Fish Authority in something like a comparable position.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN.)

(1) Section sixteen of this Act shall extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

(2) In section eleven of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1959 (which provides for the extension to the Channel Islands and the Isle of man of certain enactments, including section seven of that Act and section two of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1948), references to the said section seven and the said section two shall be construed as referring to those sections as amended by the Second Schedule to this Act, and as including references—

(a) to sections ten and eleven of this Act, and
(b) to section thirteen of this Act except in so far as it relates to offences under section twelve of this Act.

(3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that, subject to such extensions, adaptations and modifications (if any) as may be specified in the Order, the provisions of sections fifteen and seventeen of this Act shall extend to the Isle of man or any of the Channel Islands.—[Mr. Vane.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause makes provision for the application of certain provisions of the Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It is not unusual, in this connection, to have such a Clause, and I hope that hon. Members will not be disturbed by the fact that it is introduced at this stage.
Although it was clear that provision would have to be made for the application of some parts of this Bill to the Islands, it was not possible to bring in this new Clause before, because until the Bill had progressed we could not tell what its final shape would be in respect of certain matters which would be of interest to the Islands, and, further, we had to consult them about the extent to which various matters should be applied. I assure the House that the Islands are fully in agreement with this new Clause. They have asked for these provisions.
The effect of subsection (1) is to apply the provisions of Clause 16 of the Bill, which sets out the increased fines which foreigners may incur for illegal fishing in our territorial waters. Subsection (2) is rather more involved. The present position is that the power to restrict fishing given by Section 7 of the Sea Fish

Industry Act, 1959, and the power to require the licensing of fishing vessels given by Section 2 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1948, are covered by a provision in the 1959 Act which enables them to be extended to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by Order in Council. Since, under the Bill, we have amended those two Sections, it is right that any extension to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands should be of the two Sections as amended, so the two provisions are exactly parallel.

Mr. Hoy: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better explain what this does. It is not good enough to say, "If I amend this it will bring it into line with something." What does it do by bringing it into line with something else? This is bringing into operation a new Clause which will effect this country and it is proposed to apply it to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Mr. Vane: I was proceeding as shortly as I could because I thought—

Mr. Hoy: This is the most important part of all.

Mr. Vane: The first part make applicable immediately to the islands the increased penalties which foreign vessels may incur. Subsection (2) of the new Clause says:
In section eleven of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1959 (which provides for the extension to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man of certain enactments, including section seven of that Act and section two of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1948),…
Section 7 of the 1959 Act covers the power to restrict fishing, and Section 2 of the 1948 Act covers the licensing of fishing vessels.
Those are the two powers, and they can be extended to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by Order in Council. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that if a power to restrict fishing or to licence a fishing boat is to be extended to any of these Islands by Order in Council, it should be parallel to the legislation which is operative in this country.
In Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill we have amended those earlier provisions, and it is now our intention that the powers to be extended to the Channel Islands and to the Isle of Man should


be those originally provided, as amended by the Bill. I am sorry if I have not made that entirely clear.
Lastly, subsection (3) makes it possible for two Clauses in this Bill again to be extended by Order in Council to the Islands at their request; that is Clause 15, which makes it an offence to be in possession of undersized fish for the purpose of any business—and the hon. Gentleman will remember that the Clause was to cover what was really a loophole in our conservation measures—and Clause 17, which allows exemption to be given for operations carried out for scientific purposes which would otherwise be contrary to the fishery regulations.
These three subsections all include reasonable provisions which it is appropriate for us to extend to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, who have asked for these powers. I hope that the House will agree that it is proper for us to include this new Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Hoy: This is a very important Clause, and I am a little surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should have dealt with it quite so peremptorily, because it is to apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man what the hon. Gentleman says we have already done in the Bill. As a matter of fact, what he is now saying is that we are to extend the power of the Government to control the fishermen from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man both inside and outside territorial waters. That is what the new Clause will do, and it is from that point of view that we have to consider it.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government were invited to do this. Invited by whom? Who, from all the islands in the Channel, came to see the Minister to say that he ought to impose these restrictions on the fishermen of these islands? Who came from the Isle of Man to ask him to do it? The Minister had better be a little more forthcoming. He has no right to ask for powers of this kind to deal with these islands unless he can produce the proof as to who invited him to do it, and, in addition to that, tell the House with whom the consultations took place. Obviously, consultations had to take place.
Secondly, having told us that, he had bettter tell the House when the consultations took place, because we find it a little difficult to understand. I do not want to say that we actually disbelieved what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but the hon. Gentleman said that it is not unusual to have a Clause of this kind in a Bill of this kind. I do not think that it is unusual. What I think is unusual is this. Having given what the Minister said was a very long time in Committee to the Bill—and he did not complain that there had been any holding up of the Committee, though it had gone on for a very long time—the Leader of the House made the same statement last Thursday when he said that we ought to be prepared to deal with the Bill rapidly because it had been before the Committtee for such a long time that we ought to understand it from A to Z. If, in fact, that was so, why did not the Minister have this Clause in the Bill? If it is not unusual, why did he not have it in the Bill?
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that, although it is not unusual, he then had to wait to see how the Bill went. What did he mean by that? Surely, he knew what he wanted to do. I can hardly believe that the Minister waited until we had had this very long debate over these important Clauses to find out what the Committee thought before he decided to introduce this new Clause applying the provisions of these various Clauses to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
I will tell the Minister why he introduced this new Clause. During the Committee stage, it was asserted, not only from this side, but certainly by one or two members of the hon. Gentleman's own side of the Committee, that if the Government took power to prohibit, not only in territorial waters but waters outside the territorial limits, fishing by British fishermen, there were others who would quite readily come in and fish in these waters.
The Minister did not think that that would happen, but, on second thoughts, he came to the conclusion that while he could apply this in Great Britain, there might be a chance that fishermen operating from the Channel Islands and from the Isle of Man would use this ban on


fishermen in Great Britain, or take advantage of that opportunity, to drift-net for salmon. I hazard a guess that it was for that reason, and for that reason only, that we find this new Clause, being introduced at this late stage.
This new Clause is, in fact, a considerable number of new Clauses. It covers Clauses 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16 of the Bill, so that we are dealing in this new Clause, at the very least, with five Clauses of the Bill which have been discussed in Committee. The first one, let it be noted, as the Minister has said, is to increase the penalties in respect of foreign sea-fishing boats, but if we go back to Clauses 10 and 11, which are important in this part of the Bill, we find that the Minister is seeking there to impose limits on fishing by British fishermen. In Clause 10, for the first time in the history of our country, he proposes to take powers to prohibit a section of the British fishing fleet from fishing for salmon not only within the three-mile limit of territorial waters, but outside it. That is what Clause 10 provides, and the Minister proposes to take powers through this application Clause to impose the same conditions on fishermen in these islands. That is the position, as I see it.
We now go on to Clause 11, which deals with the licensing of boats. The Minister said that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man had asked for these conditions. This Clause imposes restrictions on boats fishing for salmon or migratory trout, and it does so for the very first time. I find it a little difficult to believe that, at this very late stage in the proceedings on the Bill, this imposition which the Government now seek to impose on a section of the British fishing fleet is so acceptable to the fishermen of the Channel Islands and of the Isle of Man that they have come scurrying across the water in their little boats at this late stage to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to impose these restrictions on them.
That is what this Clause will do, and it is no use the Minister shaking his head, because if my interpretation of the new Clause is not correct let the Minister get us and say so. If he does, I am quite willing to withdraw what I have said,

but 1 am certain that this new Clause does exactly that. Indeed, it is linked up with Clause 12, because, during the Committee stage, the argument was put that if we impose these restrictions on British fishermen, we could not impose them on foreign fishermen, who would still be fresh to fish up to the three-mile limit—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. E. C Redhead: The Bill, being promoted by the Corporation of London, might in other circumstances have been charged to the responsibility of the right hon. and learned Member whose constituency embraces the City of London. I am conscious of the fact that, had he not been precluded from fulfilling that task, it would have been carried out with more skill and clarity of exposition than I could hope to muster. I shall, nevertheless, do my best to explain the provisions of the Bill.
I confess that I never imagined that I should ever find myself responsible for urging upon the House a Bill promoted by the City Corporation; indeed, I can imagine that some of my hon. Friends may be looking a trifle askance at me at this moment, wondering why I should assume this responsibility. I hope that my explanation of the provisions and scope of the Bill will set at rest any fears or apprehensions that they may have.
The responsibilities of the Corporation of London are not confined to the boundaries of the City. By an Act of 1878—the Epping Forest Act—the City Corporation became the conservators of Epping Forest, that forest which is a


survivor of the Ancient Royal Forest of Waltham, now very much attenuated but consisting of approximately 6,000 acres of woodland and open glades, stretching in a narrow strip in a broken line from the boundaries of the Boroughs of West Ham and East Ham in the south, through the Boroughs of Leyton and Walthamstow—mention of which will explain my interest in the provisions of the Bill—and on to the Boroughs of Wanstead, Woodford, Chingford and the Urban District of Chigwell.
The Corporation has vested in it responsibility for the custody of Epping Forest, and it has with that the statutory obligation to preserve the forest in perpetuity for public recreation and enjoyment. It is important to say, in considering the Bill, that the City Corporation has acquitted itself of that responsibility throughout the years in an entirely satisfactory manner and with impeccable regard for the obligation laid upon it by the 1878 Act.
There exist in respect of Epping Forest some ancient rights of common, whereby commoners have the right to exercise the grazing of their animals upon the open waste lands of the forest. These rights of common were reaffirmed by the Act of 1878 and defined in terms, but the exercise of these rights has, in recent years, led to a succession of complaints. The operations of a relatively few active commoners in turning out cattle to graze upon open land has led to widespread complaints in the vicinity of Epping Forest about the depredations of these cattle, which wander away from the forest into the adjacent urban areas, which, since 1878, have become—especially in the southern part of the area of the forest, where most of the grazing land lies-densely built-up and densely populated areas, traversed not only by main roads which bear an increasingly high flow of traffic but also by roads which are appropriate to the urban areas themselves.
I emphasise that this wandering of cattle is not only on to the main roads that carry main line road traffic; on frequent occasions these cattle, being unattended and unaccompanied by any herdsman, wander deeply into the urban parts of the adjacent areas, invading the gardens of private householders. There have been numerous complaints of

damage not only to lawns, flowers and flowerbeds, but also to fences and bushes, and also complaints of quite serious losses by a number of householders who have been subjected to this nuisance.
Many complaints have also been made about the dangers on the roads, with the increasing flow of motor traffic in modern times. These complaints have been voiced and ventilated to the City Corporation itself, to the local authorities in the vicinity of the forest, and to the police, and have been reflected over a very long time in the correspondence columns of the local newspapers. I go so far as to say that to deny—as one body of objectors has—that any kind of nuisance is created by the straying animals is to fly in the face of the accumulated evidence of such complaints as have come from every one of the districts to which I have already referred.
On 20th February, 1959, I had the opportunity, on a Private Member's Motion, of initiating a debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land, published in 1958. I then took the opportunity to refer to this problem in the area of Epping Forest and sought to ventilate the grievances of the many complainants whose complaints have come to my notice. In the course of that debate I was supported by further evidence of a similar kind by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey)—who had himself had a dossier of such complaints before I became a Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).
In the course of that debate Sir Harold Webbe, then a Member both of this House and of the City Corporation, announced that the Corporation had concluded an agreement with the commoners, whereby the latter would voluntarily restrict the exercise of their rights of common and would accept certain conditions for regulating that exercise in the future. This was done with a desire to minimise the problem which had arisen in these urban areas.
The agreement contemplated that no cattle at all should be let out to graze upon forest land for the three winter months from the end of December to the end of March; that in the northern part


of the forest area, north of the line Chingford Lane, they should always be herded when they were released for grazing, and in the southern part they should always be tethered. Accompanying these conditions was an undertaking by the City Corporation to cultivate and fertilise the main grasslands so that they might thereby deter the cattle from straying too far afield.
I think I am right in saying that hon. Members who, with myself, raised this matter in the debate, welcomed this announcement. We were willing to wait to see how it worked out in practice. We were all of the same mind that we would infinitely prefer a solution of this problem along the lines of a voluntary agreement which did not involve the abrogation of the ancient common rights. We did so particularly bearing in mind the words which Sir Harold Webbe used in his contribution to the debate. I quote from HANSARD of 20th February, 1959. Having outlined the steps which I have summarised Sir Harold went on to say:
I believe that they will prove to be adequate. If they are not adequate, further restrictions may have to be imposed, but I am quite certain that the City Corporation will not seek legal powers to enforce the restriction of the commoners' rights until every possibility of getting the nuisance dealt with by voluntary arrangements of this kind has been exhausted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 706.]
It is a matter of great regret that this agreement broke down in practice. I do not think that I am going too far when I say that it was never really implemented. I do not want to go into the reasons. Various reasons have been put forward by the commoners themselves why they were unable to comply with these conditions. One was the difficulty of engaging herdsmen for the task. In consequence of this breakdown complaints from scores of householders and public authorities in the area of the forest have been intensified, and the depredations by these cattle still go on up to this day.
At one stage certain of the local authorities were contemplating joint action for the promotion of legislation which would have entirely extinguished the rights of commoners. Everyone was loath to contemplate that extreme step. Consultations took place with the City Corporation. Pressure was exerted on the

Corporation to do something positive to remove this nuisance and this danger in the area of the forest. To the City Corporation it appeared that there were three choices before it. It could abolish the common rights which, as I say, everyone was loath to contemplate, or it could fence in the forest so that cattle should be kept inside. That was an impracticable proposition either on the question of cost or by reference to the statutory obligation of the City Corporation to preserve the forest for the enjoyment and recreation of the public at large. Quite clearly, any such large-scale fencing would have denied free access by the ordinary public to a large part of the forest.
Thus, the decision of the Corporation, taken reluctantly, was that the only way of proceeding was by way of legislation restrictive upon the exercise of these rights. Thus this Bill which is before the House tonight, which in Part II proposes that as from 1st January, 1963, all animals put out to graze on forest lands in the exercise of these rights of common shall be tethered and that the commoners shall be entitled to monetary compensation for such restriction on their rights as involves loss, subject to the conditions specified in the Bill.
There is included in the Bill machinery for arbitration to determine upon disputed claims. This Bill in its present form has the specific support by resolution of the local authorities of the Boroughs of West Ham, East Ham, Walthamstow, Leyton and the Urban District of Chigwell. Only one authority in the area, Wanstead and Woodford, has specifically gone on record in opposition to the provisions of the Bill, although I venture to say, with the utmost respect, that the attitude on the part of that authority does not appear by the evidence which is available both to the City Corporation and in the columns of the local Press to reflect the universal feeling of the citizens of that borough.
To put the matter into perspective, I point out that the number of active commoners, which has never been more than thirty-five in the whole course of the last thirty years, is today twenty-five, only seven of whom exercise their right in respect of the grazing of cattle. The rest do so only for the purpose of


grazing horses and ponies. As a matter of self-interest, the owners of those animals ensure that their horses and ponies are tethered. Thus they will not be in any way adversely affected by the provisions of this Bill.
I turn to consider some of the matters and objections which have been voiced to the proposals of this Bill. First, I refer to the Report on the Bill by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Chairman has quite properly and appropriately called attention to other private Bills dealing with the question of common land in other parts of the country, which have been brought forward since the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission. Those Bills have been either withdrawn or rejected because of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, because it has been thought inappropriate, perhaps, to anticipate general legislation based on the Report of the Royal Commission or that private legislation was an inappropriate way of dealing with problems of the kind instanced by those recommendations.
In this instance similar apprehensions or possible implications do not arise. In this Bill there is no proposal, nor is there lurking any intention, to alienate the common land from the use and enjoyment of the general public. The Bill is confined to the limited problem which I have outlined in its relation to Epping Forest where, I submit, by reason of the growth of urbanisation of a large part of the surrounding area a great deal of which, by the way, is within the scheduled area of the Greater London Plan—special circumstances obviously arise because of the heavily built-up character of the area.
I understand that the only prospect of early legislation following the Report of the Royal Commission—here I have no doubt that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be able to confirm my understanding of the situation—is legislation to provide for machinery for the registration of common rights, a process which is expected to last for five years. That particular aspect need give rise to no concern about the common rights of Epping Forest being involved, for those commoners are easily

ascertainable and registration represents no real problem. Beyond that, if this Bill, or any other solution, were deferred while awaiting legislation on the whole ambit of the Royal Commission's Report, that could be done only at the risk of intensifying the difficulties to which I have alluded.
Turning to some of the objections, it has been argued that this Bill will destroy the rural character of the neighbourhood of Epping Forest, that it is after all very pleasant to be able to contemplate cattle roaming in the forest. If that were all that were involved I do not think for a moment that I should be pressing this Bill on the attention of the House. The point at issue is not cattle roaming in the forest but the fact that they do not confine themselves in their unattended state to the forest but wander into urban areas. Whatever rights of grazing of forest land may exist, they should not be exercised at the expense of the rights of many more individuals in respect of property and safety of limb on the roads, where these wandering cattle have intensified the hazards to motorists.
It is argued that householders should fence against the common for their protection. It is argued that such a step would be a reasonable step for them to take in their own interests. The Royal Commission made it abundantly clear that there is no legal obligation on a private householder to fence against the common. Even if there were such an obligation, it is clear that the kind of fence which would be necessary to keep these cattle out would be wholly inappropriate to an ordinary dwelling-house.
It is argued, too, that the Bill presages the possibility of other encroachments on the public use and enjoyment of the forest. It is said that the Bill is to be regarded in a rather sinister light as the thin edge of the wedge. I affirm, with the full authority of the City Corporation, that the Corporation has no such purpose or intention and, indeed, would vigorously oppose any effort by any other body so to act in consequence of the passage of the Bill. It would in any case be entirely foreign to the whole history of the Corporation's custody of Epping Forest.
It is said that the tethering of animals in the manner proposed in the Bill will involve cruelty to them and that they will be exposed to the risk of irresponsible young people harassing them when they are tethered. There is nothing strange about the tethering of cattle. I gather that it is done in other countries. I know that it is done in Guernsey. In any event, I cannot imagine anything more cruel than the present practice of turning out these cattle to wander unattended, at the mercy of irresponsible youngsters, who hound and harass them and force them, often enough, in considerable numbers on to busy highways where they get mixed up with the congested traffic, to the danger of motorists and themselves. I am given to understand that it is not unusual for the keepers to come across the body of a luckless animal which has been in collision with a motor vehicle on the road and crawled away to the in some obscure thicket.
It is also argued that these cattle make a contribution to keeping down the growth of the forest and that, if this right were removed or limited, it would be to the disadvantage of the forest and, therefore, affect the enjoyment of the forest's delights by the public. I am informed that only 223 cattle are at present involved. If anyone wants to raise the issue of the impact of the Bill upon the country's milk supply, permit me to say that, according to my information, not more than three cows have been detected in Epping Forest in the exercise of these common rights in the last three years. For the greater part, they are a collection of bullocks. In any event, 1 am authoritatively informed that the numbers concerned do not make any sensible contribution to the well-being of the forest. I am told that it would require more than 2,000 head of cattle to do that job effectively and that for this purpose the City Corporation has had to rely upon mechanical means, which can be readily extended to meet whatever small deficiency the removal of these cattle will bring about.
Valid and serious objection has been taken to the proviso in Clause 8, which would limit the compensation to be paid to the commoners to an overall total of £30,000. I am authorised to say that, if the Bill is given a Second

Reading, the Corporation will ask leave of the Committee to delete this proviso. I hope that those who feel—I accept this point—that it is an objectionable proviso because it is entirely unprecedented in legislation of this kind will be assuaged by this information. In any case, assured on this point, the few active commoners who originally lodged a petition against the Bill have now withdrawn their petition. This is an important and significant factor in the consideration of the Bill.
For the rest, the provisions in Part III deal with a number of miscellaneous matters of relatively minor importance which I do not think are contentious in themselves and with which, therefore, I will not weary the House in detail. Any point at issue upon them can well be dealt with in Committee. I believe that the major and most important part of the Bill, namely the provisions in Part II, provide the real and sensible solution in all the circumstances to what has become for hundreds of householders an intolerable nuisance, entirely out of keeping with modern conditions and requirements in an urban area. I believe that the Bill will remove a source of considerable annoyance, damage, loss and danger in a way which I believe to be wholly fair and equitable to the few commoners concerned. I commend the Bill to the approval of the House.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) has given the House a very clear exposition of the purposes of the Bill. As time is limited, I shall speak for only a few minutes on Part II. Epping Forest means much to my constituents and to the constituents of my colleagues sitting round me. Verderers of the forest are among my constituents. We value the forest, its amenities and its traditions. So does the City Corporation, which has sponsored the Bill. The record of the Corporation, which has been so tenacious of the traditions of the forest and zealous and jealous for its amenities, should give the House confidence in the Bill.
We would all have wished that the object could have been secured by voluntary agreement and without the necessity


for paying compensation. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West explained, the proposals outlined by Sir Harold Webbe in the debate on common land in February, 1959, did not succeed. We want to preserve the forest, but, speaking for very many of my constituents, we want also to preserve the life and limbs of our people.
I have in my hand a formidable return of accidents resulting from cattle straying from the forest land on to the highways. These are only accidents which wore reported to the police between 1st January, 1959, and 15th March, 1962. Taking the accidents within my constituency in Loughton and Buckhurst Hill, there were 14 collisions with, and accidents caused by, straying deer; eight such accidents were caused by cattle, and one by a horse.
We are sometimes told about the possible cruelty of animals involved in the provisions of the Bill, but I wish that any person advancing that argument could see some of the horrible injuries and suffering which have been occasioned to deer and cattle as a result of accidents. They also stray into shopping streets and residential areas, wreaking havoc with the lawns and flower beds of the citizens.

Sir John Maitland: My hon. Friend mentioned deer. I am very interested in this. There is nothing in the Bill to restrict the movement of deer.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am sorry if I strayed from cattle. I do not think that it matters for the purposes of the Bill, but there is provision for a deer sanctuary.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has slipped. He would agree with me, if he went to the forest, that the deer do not often come out into the residential areas. They stay within the forest. They are not to be seen on the roads.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I was just quoting from the return of accidents, and I thought it only fair to mention that deer were also involved, but that does not make it any the less desirable to provide for the tethering of cattle. I believe that Part II of the Bill will reduce serious road accidents without causing

any damage to the character and enjoyment of the forest, and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I have listened very carefully to what has so far been said, but, as you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the Second Reading of the Bill, and there is on the Order Paper an Amendment in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends asking the House to refuse to give it a Second Reading.
In putting down that Amendment, we have been actuated not so much by the specific argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Redhead) in relation to what is in the Bill, but by two motives, one general and one specific—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I should have said that I was not proposing to select the hon. Member's reasoned Amendment, because he can say what he wants to say without that being done.

Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
With the leave of the House, I shall content myself by saying that I am not particularly concerned with the merits or demerits of the Epping Forest proposals but, as a frequenter of the forest over a great many years, I have enjoyed its amenities, and I regret that the City Corporation should have found itself reluctantly compelled to seek statutory power to do what everyone had hoped might have been done by voluntary agreement.
I object to the Second Reading on two grounds. First, there is a question of principle. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the whole question of London government is in the melting pot. We have debated the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper, on which there has been a division of opinion. One thing to which all my hon. Friends object is the recommendation of the Royal Commission, endorsed by the Government, that the special powers of the City of London should be preserved.
We think that in any reform of London government, whether in the way proposed by the Government or in any


other way, it is an anachronism to preserve those special powers of the Corporation. We think that if the London County Council is to be abolished because it is regarded as out of date, a fortiori the City Council is an anachronism, and its preservation cannot be justified in any reform of London government.
Consistently with that view, therefore, it seems to me to be quite impossible for any of my hon. Friends to support a Measure which gives additional powers to the City Corporation. When we examine the proposals for London government, which we shall get next Session, we shall no doubt have a number of Amendments aimed, if not at the abolition of the City Corporation as it now is and functions, at a complete redistribution of its functions so that the City is merged with various other Metropolitan boroughs in some sensible scientific form of London government. When we get to that stage, we shall have to consider what Parliament should do about some of the functions now exercised by the City Corporation, whether with regard to Epping Forest, markets, bridges, or anything else.
Whatever may be the history of the City—and I have as much affection for its historic association as have other hon. Members—that does not, in my view, justify the retention of the special powers and privileges of the City Corporation. Until that reform of London government has taken place, it is completely inconsistent for any of my hon. Friends to support a Bill which gives the City Corporation any additional powers—

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Does that mean that my hon. Friend is arguing that, meanwhile, whatever alterations there may be in the prospective reorganisation of local government in London, the existing authorities should not exercise a sense of responsibility for their citizens?

Mr. Fletcher: I certainly think that they should, but, at the outset of the consideration of the Bill, it is important to put it in the context of the pending general reform of London government.
I therefore think that it is a mistake in approach for us to do anything

which is based on the tacit acceptance of the view that the powers of the City Corporation, as they existed in the past, will continue to exist. As we are promised legislation on this subject next year, I think that this question of Epping Forest, and the other questions raised in the Bill, can quite well wait another year. I should have hoped that, as a matter of principle, I should have had the support of all my hon. Friends who oppose the Government's proposals for the retention of the City of London Corporation as a separate unit of local government.
That is my first point. Now, we all regret, Mr. Speaker, that your own position in the Chair renders it impossible for you to speak in this debate on behalf of your constituents, but the fact that the City of London has such a distinguished representative in this House cannot, of course, inhibit us—and I am sure that you will be the last to wish any of us to be so inhibited—from expressing the kind of criticism that we feel it our duty to express.
My second and specific reason for objecting to the Bill being given a Second Reading is that it omits to make any provision for dealing with the Caledonian Market site. The Caledonian Market site is of very great interest and concern to the inhabitants of the Borough of Islington. That site consists of 29 acres in one of the most favoured parts of the borough as seen in its natural setting, because it stands at the top of a ridgeway, with glorious views both to the east and the west, overlooking various parts of London. That site has been derelict for over twenty years—apart from four acres which have been used for abattoirs.
I need hardly remind the House that, with the exception of Shoreditch, the Borough of Islington has less open space per 1,000 of its population than has any other London borough. In addition, there is in Islington, as in nearly every other London borough, a great housing shortage. It has been a running sore to the people of Islington that, in their own borough, 29 valuable acres have been deserted, derelict, unused for a period of over twenty years, at a time when the borough is screaming for additional houses, and for open spaces so that the children of the borough may be kept off


the streets and have some playgrounds in attractive surroundings.
Had those 29 acres belonged to any ordinary individual, the borough council or the London County Council would have taken power to acquire them by issuing compulsory purchase orders. Unfortunately, one local authority cannot exercise compulsory-power-order jurisdiction over land belonging to another local authority. Therefore, Islington Borough Council has been unable to do anything about this without the co-operation of the City Corporation. I regret to say that we have not had that co-operation.
It was only a few years ago that the City Corporation promoted a Bill one of the objects of which was to seek power to move the present Covent Garden Market to the Caledonian Market site in Islington, or, at any rate, to use part of the Caledonian site for some of the purposes of the Covent Garden Market. I am happy to say that, as a result of the determined protests of my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) and Islington, Southwest (Mr. A. Evans), we were able to scotch that monstrous project and that no longer is there any risk of any part of Covent Garden being moved to the Caledonian Market site. We have been able to save it for the purposes of housing and open spaces, for which it is ideally situated.
The reason given by the City Corporation for not having done the ordinary and sensible thing of releasing this land to Islington Borough Council is, I understand, that the City could use four acres of it as abattoirs. That, I understand, is the reason given by the City Corporation and the explanation which has prevented the borough council from using the land sensibly, instead of it remaining derelict. It is true, and anyone going down York Road will be aware, that one frequently sees cattle being driven from the terminus at King's Cross to these abattoirs to be slaughtered. I have been urging for years that this practice should be stopped and that the abattoirs should be removed and the whole 29 acres released.
A few years ago the City Corporation suggested putting up a limited number of houses on a site adjacent to the

abattoirs, but although the people of Islington are desperately short of housing accommodation there is a limit to what they will stand. They were not prepared to have houses put up adjacent to the abattoirs. The L.C.C. objected to it on planning grounds. We have been asking for years that the area should be cleared and used for housing purposes, but what has happened? Having removed the Covent Garden menace, there were certain negotiations between the Court of Common Council and the L.C.C—and the Cattle Markets Committee of the Corporation was authorised to conduct negotiations with the trade. A time limit, to 30th June, 1960, was set by the Court of Common Council for the completion of these negotiations. That date has been passed by a period of eighteen months and nothing has been done.
For that reason some of my hon. Friends and I were amazed to find that this Bill, promoted by the City Corporation, made no provision whatever for the removal of these abattoirs. I am not content to support the Second Reading unless we have an absolute and categorical assurance that, not later than next Session, specific proposals will be made either for the removal of the abattoirs or for their abandonment. There is no need for the City Corporation to provide abattoirs. There is certainly no need for them to do so in Islington. The provision of slaughterhouses by local authorities—whether the City Corporation, or any other local authority—is a purely permissive matter. There is no statutory obligation on a local authority to provide abattoirs. Anyone can provide them if he can get the necessary planning consent.
It is monstrous that the well-being, health and welfare of the inhabitants of Islington should have been sacrificed all these years because the City Corporation wanted to use these four acres in Islington as abattoirs and, thereby, sterilise the whole of the 29 acres. It should have been made clear, not only in 1960 but years ago, that these abattoirs should be removed so that a sensible, comprehensive plan could have been worked out by the borough council in conjunction with the L.C.C. for the replanning of the area. The L.C.C. has already—I believe with the consent of the Minister,


who has shown great interest in this matter—adopted a redevelopment plan which does permit of a large number of houses, a new school and a large area of open space.
That brings me to the question of finance, because I understand that there have been certain financial discussions on this topic. This matter should be brought into the open because many of my constituents complain of the exorbitant rents they have to pay. They also complain, of course—as do local authorities, including the L.C.C.—that one of the reasons why council tenants are charged high rents is the high cost of land. About twelve to fifteen years ago land in Islington was being sold for about £7,000 an acre. Comparable land in Islington today, as a result of the vicious inflation of land values in London, has risen, comparing like with like, to £50,000 an acre.
The last thing I want to find is that in any financial negotiation the Borough of Islington, or the inhabitants of the borough, are penalised in any way with regard to the cost that may have to be paid, one way or another, as a result of this inflation. It would be monstrous for the City Corporation even to contemplate benefiting through its own inequality and neglect and attempting to evaluate these 29 acres of the Caledonian Market site at today's value when, if the Corporation had done its duty, the land could have been transferred to Islington Borough Council twenty years ago for about one-seventh of its present value.
But the matter goes further than that. I hope that it will be conceded, as a matter of commonsense, that once these filthy abattoirs are removed from the fair Borough of Islington, and once the City Corporation has removed its scrubby hands from this site, this area of land will be recognised for what it is.

Mr. Percivall Pott: The hon. Member is talking about a scrubby area. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hands."] He must be fully aware that this comes under a health authority, which has never raised any objections to the abattoirs and the way in which they are run.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not objecting to the way they are run. I am asking for their removal from the Borough of

Islington. It has been conceded for a long time, and urged by the L.C.C. and the Islington Borough Council, that they should be removed. There is no case for their being in Islington.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I know quite a lot about this matter. It would be wrong for the House to have the impresson that the City is not, in conjunction with the L.C.C., doing everything possible to find an alternative site for the abattoirs. As I understand, the City is prepared to grant the free use of this land to the L.C.C. and Islington, provided the L.C.C. is prepared to face up to the cost of building the abattoirs.

Mr. Fletcher: I was talking about the cost, and one of the ingredients in the cost is what value will be placed on this land. It is all very well to hear what the L.C.C. intends to do, but the L.C.C. is to be abolished.

Mrs. Corbet: The whole point of my interruption was that, under the agreed terms, no value will be placed on that land. It could go free of charge to the authority which is prepared to develop it. The L.C.C. agreed long ago to bear the abattoir costs.

Mr. Fletcher: The House will have noticed this alliance between the City Corporation and the L.C.C. It is my duty to say what I think should be done in the interests of the people of Islington.
It is a scandal that 29 acres of land in Islington should have been left derelict for so long. It is high time that these abattoirs were removed and these 29 acres made available—I would say preferably to the Islington Borough Council, but certainly to some local authority—for sensible development. I am not at all sure that any compensation is properly payable by the Islington Borough Council or by the L.C.C. for the removal of these abattoirs. I want the abattoirs removed or abandoned and this land given to the Borough of Islington for its rightful purposes.
These are matters ultimately for Parliament to decide. As I was saying, before long we shall have a Bill dealing with the whole reorganisation of London. The present proposal is that the Boroughs of Islington and Finsbury should be merged. My hon. Friends say that there is no possible case for


the retention of the City of London as a separate local authority. The City of London is contiguous to the Borough of Finsbury, which, as I say, is to be merged with the Borough of Islington. I have no objection to the City of London being merged with Finsbury and Islington so as to form one sensible local government unit, in which case all these problems about compensation between the City and the Islington Borough Council and the L.C.C. would disappear.
It does not seem to me that it can make sense, in any reconsideration of London government, for one local authority, and, in particular, the richest and most privileged local authority in the country, because 100 years ago it had a pedlars' market where the Caledonian Market now stands together with a few abattoirs, to deprive the Borough of Islington indefinitely of its right to use that valuable site for a sensible purpose.

Mr. Pott: The hon. Gentleman is talking as though the borough market was part of Islington. It is not, never has been and never will be. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like the Borough of Islington to take over the land and to put it to another use, but he must face the fact that this area belongs to the Corporation of the City of London. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take it over—there would be great opposition if he tried to do so—he must take it over at valuation. There must be no wishful thinking on his part that he can "pinch" a valuable area from the great Corporation of the City of London because it suits his local taxpayers.

Mr. Fletcher: This shows us where we are getting to. I contest every word of what the hon. Gentleman says. First, he denied that this land is part of Islington. It certainly is part of Islington and ought to be part of Islington.

Mr. Pott: No.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman does not know his history. This is an integral part of the Borough of Islington. It was only in 1850 that this House gave the City Corporation certain powers with regard to it. But, just as this House gave the City Corporation certain rights with regard to that 29 acres in 1850 or thereabouts, today this House can take

those rights away. It is for this House to decide what is right, equitable and just. If the hon. Gentleman argues that because the City Corporation is a wealthy, privileged, unique unit of local government, and because it was given 29 acres in Islington 100 years ago or more, it is now right and just that the impoverished Borough of Islington should have to pay some inflated value for this land to the wealthy City Corporation, that seems to me to be monstrous. I do not understand how any argument like that could be adduced in this House.
I gave way to listen patiently to the interjection of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Pott) and I want to reply to it. I stress that it is for this House to decide what should be done. That is why there will be a Bill for the reform of London's government and that is why I object in principle when the powers of a local authority are arraigned. Any local authority, whether it be the City Corporation or any other authority, is not entitled to something as of right and for ever. The argument for the reform of London government is based on the assumption that common sense, equity, justice and sound local government require that some changes should take place. In any change which takes place, these 29 acres, which admittedly are now redundant for a pedlars' market and for abattoirs because abattoirs in the middle of Islington are regarded as unhealthy should be restored to the Borough Council. No question of compensation arises.

Mr. Pott: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The fact is that by Statute the 29 acres about which we are speaking happen to fall in one local authority's area. To demand that they should be in some other area is justifiable, but to suggest that they should be returned to Islington without the payment of compensation is complete nonsense. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is talking complete nonsense when he says that Islington has a right to these 29 acres. It has no more right to them than the man in the moon. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that by Statute they belong to somebody. The hon. Gentleman can argue that the right to them should be


transferred—I am not arguing that point—but that is not dealt with in the Bill. The Bill has nothing to do with the transfer of local government rights.

Mr. Fletcher: It is precisely because the Bill does not deal with that matter that I object to the Bill. The only respect in which I agree with the hon. Gentleman is that this is a matter for Parliament to decide, but I assert that there is a principle of justice in the realm of local government law that if 29 acres in Islington were allotted to the City Corporation 100 years ago for a purpose which has become obsolete, that does not justify the City Corporation in claiming as of right compensation at an inflated value which is the result of its dereliction of duty.
This matter is worrying my constituents. They come to me every week and say, "We are on the housing list. Why cannot we have somewhere to live? Why are not houses put on the 29 acres in Caledonian Market?" Am I to say to them, "That land does not belong to the Islington Borough Council. It belongs to a neighbouring, friendly local authority which has special privileges and which, although you are living in slum, overcrowded and insanitary conditions, is entitled to deprive you of houses and to stop the borough council and the L.C.C. putting up houses there. It is entitled to sit on that land for twenty years and see its theoretical value inflated year by year. It is then entitled to stop the borough council from erecting houses on it unless it first pays the wealthy Corporation a fancy price so that you poor people, who have nowhere to live, will have to pay an exorbitant rent."?
If that is the argument of the City Corporation, I am very glad that we now have it on record. To me, it seems monstrous. It is because it is implicit in what the hon. Member has said that my constituents in Islington feel so aggrieved about the subject that they have asked me to take the opportunity presented by the Bill to ventilate this grievance and to protest most vehemently on their behalf about this attitude.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. William Roots: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has certainly shown

himself a master of the non sequhur. There appear to be two arguments that he advances against giving the Bill a Second Reading. The first is that he envisages the disappearance of the City Corporation. I understood, however, that his party was opposing the reorganisation of London local government. It seems curious to want to have it both ways. If one is opposing reorganisation, the City of London Corporation will remain in the foreseeable future and, presumably, the very real advantages of the Bill should be put into effect as soon as possible. The same is true even if the City Corporation is to be done away with.
If the most able presentation by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) was correct, the Bill appears to be highly necessary in connection with Epping Forest and the commoners. What can be gained by putting off the passage of the Bill by objecting that other provisions which cannot now be put into it are not present, I fail to see.
In addition, the hon. Member for Islington, East might have been a little more frank had he disclosed to the House that in a letter to him dated 23rd March, the City Corporation disclosed that they
have decided to seek powers in the next session of Parliament to dismarket the market land at Islington and to close the abattoir. If these proposals are approved by Parliament the site will thereafter be freed and made available by the Corporation for housing and other purposes.
I am told that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has been informed of that plan by the City Corporation. In those circumstances, is it not clear that, while the hon. Member has made his point for the benefit of his constituents, it is hopelessly irrelevant to the Bill and it would be a disgrace if the Bill were held up for a moment on that account?

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I am sure that the whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) for the clear and reasonable way in which he has commended the Bill, although, as I shall seek to show, his speech seemed to contain a good deal of special pleading.
My hon. Friend made it clear that the substance of the Bill is contained in Part II dealing with Epping Forest and Chat the miscellaneous provisions contained in Part III have been added as a sort of make-weight because the opportunity of presenting a Private Bill has arisen. I shall, therefore, direct my remarks to Part II of the Bill.
I shall deal with some of the points which my hon. Friend made during his speech, but his case would have been much more powerful if he could have shown that the attitude which he has taken today and the case which he submitted to the House had been put as powerfully before the Royal Commission on Common Land when it considered the memorandum from the City Corporation and heard witnesses in support of it. The witnesses supporting the City memorandum at that time took a very different attitude on some of the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Secondly, my hon. Friend sounded what, I thought, was a rather triumphant note to the effect that the City Corporation had been able to "square" the present commoners who would withdraw their opposition. I remind him that it was precisely because, a century ago, the lords of the manor in the forest and the commoners were "squared" so consistently to the detriment of the public interest that the agitation started which eventually led to the City Corporation itself taking over the forest and being given statutory authority by the Epping Forest Act, 1878.
Before I proceed further, I support what my hon. Friend has said about the work which the City Corporation has done under that Act and the real sense in which they have been conservators of the forest. They have a distinguished record in this respect and it is, therefore, with some reluctance that I find myself opposed to the Bill that they are now promoting.
In the past, Parliament has frequently passed Private Bills affecting forests and commons in a variety of ways which I need not particularise. It is, however, equally true—and this is germane to the debate—that since the Royal Commission on Common Land reported in July, 1958, Parliament has taken a quite different attitude. The position is that

except in a few cases where common land has had to be acquired for existing statutory purposes, Parliament has not permitted such Bills to proceed.
Let me give one or two examples. In the Session of 1958–59, the St. Neots Urban District Council promoted the St. Neots Urban District Council (Commons) Bill to provide for the regulation of that common. That is a precedent which is relevant to the present Measure. Although there was in that case only one petitioner against the Bill and not several, as in the present case, the Committee made a special Report in which it said that it considered that the wide issues of general principle raised by the Bill should not be settled by means of private legislation having regard to the then recent Report of the Royal Commission. In view of that Report from the Committee, the Bill was rejected.
Again in the 1958–59 Session, the Plymouth Corporation submitted the Plymouth Corporation (Harrowbeer Aerodrome) Bill, in which it sought to provide for the establishment of an aerodrome on land which formed part of Roborough Common and for that purpose to authorise compulsory acquisition of the land and the extinguishment of common rights thereover. That Bill, which was introduced in another place, was referred to a Select Committee there and was rejected.
I mention those two Bills because they are referred to by the Chairman of Ways and Means in the Report which he made to the House under Standing Order No. 85 on 12th March last, to which my hon. Friend has referred. I ask the House to note the reasons why he did so. It was because he was of the opinion that there were special circumstances in so far as
no Private Bill whose main object was to regulate common land has been passed by Parliament since the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land was made in 1958.
In connection with that Report, I should like to make particular reference to the last paragraph in it. There, the Chairman pointed out that no question of acquiring common land arose and he suggested that since the forest was virtually surrounded by built-up areas, it must clearly involve special problems which may not be of general application.
On that, I hope it will not be regarded as out of order if I point out that the reference to the question of compulsory acquisition of land was quite unnecessary as it is irrelevant in the present case. While the Royal Commission came to the view that common land should be preserved in the public interest, it is clear that the need from time to time to develop common land for specific statutory purposes will continue to be necessary. What is important, and what I wish to emphasise, is that the special Report of the Committee on the St. Neots Bill to which I have referred clearly was of the view that the regulation of commons ought not to be settled by private legislation. That, however, is precisely what the City Corporation is seeking to do with the present Measure.
It is true to say that in dealing with private legislation the House tries to hold the scales evenly between all those who come to seek powers from it. In my view, to allow the present Measure to proceed with the part dealing with Epping Forest would create a situation in which there was one law for the rich City Corporation and another for the smaller St. Neots Urban District Council.
On the general objections to the Measure, I should like to add this. On 20th February, 1959, as my hon. Friend himself has said, the House passed the following resolution on the Motion of my hon. Friend:
That this House welcomes the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land and subject to points of detail upon which further consultations may be deemed expedient, urges Her Majesty's Government to give early consideration to the recommendations of the Commission and to announce its intentions thereon.
No doubt, we shall hear from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what progress has been made. I think that it is true that those further consultations have been taking place and that progress has been made towards the legislation which eventually will be presented to this House. What I have said constitutes, I think, a fairly substantial case on general grounds against conceding the present Measure.
One or two special points were brought forward by my hon. Friend

upon which I ought to comment. Before doing so, I think that the House ought to remind itself what the Epping Forest Act, 1878, provided. There are three provisions in particular to which I should like to draw attention. Section 5 provides that
All rights of common of pasture … as they exist at the passing of this Act, shall continue, without prejudice, nevertheless, to the provisions of this Act…
Section 7 provides that
The Conservators "—
that is, the City Corporation—
shall at all times keep Epping Forest unin-closed and unbuilt on, as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public …
Section 9 provides that
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the public shall have the right to use Epping Forest as an open space for recreation and enjoyment.
I think that it is, therefore, very clear from all these provisions that this is not merely a matter to be settled as between the City Corporation and the commoners, but that there is a public interest which in fact affects the whole population in the Greater London area.
The proposal is that as from 1st January next an animal shall not be turned out in the forest unless it is tethered. I am informed by people who have practical knowledge and experience that it is, in fact, impracticable to tether animals in the forest. If it is argued that this is being done in a number of cases in respect of horses, as referred to by my hon. Friend, these are, I am informed, cases in which single horses are tethered near the commoner's holding. The majority of the animals grazing in the forest are cattle, and if they were to be tethered they would need constant moving and watering. As my hon. Friend remarked, there are no herdsmen available for this purpose.
One of the likely results of the cessation of grazing is that the forest will become overgrown with scrub birch and thorn, making it, in parts, quite impenetrable and useless to the public for recreation purposes. I understand that a method of keeping the forest clear has not yet been devised which is as effective as grazing.
Witnesses who attended upon the Commission in support of the memorandum put in by the City Corporation


referred to this point in their evidence. For example, the late Lieut.-Colonel Edward N. Buxton, who was a very familiar figure in his time in Epping Forest, and a verderer, and who was very interested in the protection of all public rights, in reply to a question from a member of the Commission as to whether he would like to see a fairly big increase in the agricultural use of the forest, replied, in paragraph 2536:
Yes, in the use for grazing. It is pathetic not to have the amount of grazing we had before.
The view which I have expressed about the undergrowth was confirmed by Colonel Chappell, another witness, and also a verderer, who stated:
The clearings in the forest are in fact being very much invaded by birch and thorn as a result of the reduction in cattle numbers.
On both these points, this is the evidence submitted on behalf of the City Corporation, which certainly does not tally with the case put forward by my hon. Friend.
The second basis of the Bill is the alleged inconvenience and damage to adjoining occupiers. On this aspect, I would suggest that this consideration cannot justify the curtailment of well-established grazing rights. Most of these occupiers, to whom my hon. Friend referred, occupy buildings on land which, in the past, was enclosed out of the waste and in respect of which they are liable, from a commonsense point of view if not from a legal point of view, to fence against the common, particularly as one must remember that these people have the benefit of the openness of the common and the rural surroundings on their very doorsteps.
The third leg of the case submitted by my hon. Friend is the danger to traffic. In this case, I submit that only an over-riding necessity with regard to possible traffic danger could justify the severe curtailment of the commoners' rights of grazing. The figures of road accidents do not establish that stray animals are the cause of a significant number of accidents. The City Corporation itself dealt with this point in its evidence to the Royal Commission on Common Land. Perhaps I might read the relevant part of that memorandum. It said, in paragraph 19 (iv):

It is desired to emphasise that the conditions of urbanisation and traffic now obtaining … do not of themselves constitute a criterion as to whether or not grazing rights in. and consequently the penetration of cattle into, those Parishes should be curtailed…The greater proportion of the whole of the Forest grazing land lies within these Parishes, to which the cattle enlarged upon the Forest are naturally attracted. The rights of inter-commonage are as valuable and important as ever they were. Intensification of road user and greater urbanisation have occurred side by side, and it is sometimes readily forgotten that the roads became established on, and cross common land, and the dwellings erected alongside common land.
That, surely, is arguing that the occupiers of the land adjoining and the people who use the roads in the forest must take the common as they find it.
I conclude with a letter I have received from the Epping Forest Association. This says:
If the Epping Forest cattle go, for that is what tethering will mean, the whole character of Epping Forest will be endangered by the proposal to keep it in order by mechanical means. Such means, we feel, will start by tidying and end by ruining the 6,000 acres of natural woodland adjacent to London.
I hope that, in all the circumstances, hon. Members will scrutinise the Bill with considerable care, and that, even if they decide to give it a Second Reading, they will support the proposal to delete Part II, dealing with Epping Forest.

8.20 p.m.

Sir John Maitland: I have often heard it said that one cannot raise any subject in the House without somebody having some peculiar and special knowledge. The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) has been talking about verderers. I have been a verderer of Epping Forest. I am not at the moment because I do not live in the area. My great-grandfather and my great-great-grandfather were verderers before me. My great-great-grand father was also a Member of this House.
My grandfather was not a verderer, because he was one of the wicked lords of the manor who were supposed to be fighting against the rights of commoners by enclosing Epping Forest. I cannot help feeling that my ancestors and their opponents—although they fought tremendous battles they were very often great friends with their opponents—both parties must be turning cart wheels—if that is the right expression to


use—with amusement to hear again in this House almost exactly the same arguments to destroy commoners' rights as those which led to the extinguishment of the lords of the manor in the long legal action which preceded the 1878 Act. That is remarkable.
I want to make one correction to the interesting document which the City Corporation has put out. The lords of the manor in those days were made by the Crown to buy out their rights at considerable cost. That is how they acquired the position they did. That fact is left out sometimes when a lord of the manor is hung in effigy.
The lords of the manor set out to try to improve the amenities of the forest. They tried to reclaim land which had gone to seed and to make it bear fruit. Now, of course, we have to make it safe for traffic—which is the great thing to do these days. The wheel has turned full circle, and we see the City Corporation using similar arguments to those used by the people who tried to protect the lords of the manor's rights in the old days in 1870.
But times change. Old wrongs must be forgotten—with, I am afraid, old rights. But whatever happens, let us not forget that Epping Forest is not a park. It is a forest. I have been a verderer, and I know that the forest has been lovingly maintained as far as possible in its simple and natural state. The regeneration of trees has been done naturally. There was no planting in my day. This has been done to try to keep the forest in its old traditional, fascinating state.
However, even if times change I hope that we can keep the forest as it should be. I will not take an active part in the proceedings on this Bill, but it would have been mean for one of my name and family connections and with such links with the forest, to have refrained from speaking. I should like to wish the forest good fortune and good conservation in the future, and to thank, on behalf of all of us who have had something to do with Epping Forest, the City Corporation for the great work it has done.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: I intervene for only a few minutes

because I wish to follow up a statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots), who is now, unfortunately, not in his place. He referred to the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that the City Corporation had given an assurance that the Metropolitan Cattle Market site would be freed in due course for housing and other social purposes.
It is indeed true that the Corporation has given that assurance. I have its letter in my hand now. It is from the Guildhall and it is signed by the City Remembrancer. It says:
I am now in a position to inform you that the Corporation have decided to seek powers in the next Session of Parliament to dismarket the market land at Islington and to close the Abattoir. If these proposals are approved by Parliament the site will thereafter be freed and made available by the Corporation for housing and other purposes.
That is all I have to say on this Bill. The assurance is satisfactory as fax as it goes. It proves that my hon. Friends and I were right in our persistence in this matter. It proves that one way to stimulate a possibly reactionary local council is to put down a Motion for an Instruction when its Private Bill is before this House.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I was feeling a little happy just now that the debate had moved from Islington and its slaughterhouses to Epping Forest. I spent many General Elections being slaughtered politically in Islington, and I was rather regretful about having to turn to that, even in debate.
I want to move to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Lewisharn, South (Mr. C. Johnson) on the question of commoners' rights in Epping Forest. Part II of the Bill is, as I see it, for the benefit of the motoring public. I see no good argument for this Bill in saying that there are a number of motorists who do not drive in such a way as to draw up within the length of their vision, and, therefore, run down the cattle in Epping Forest. That is not a good reason for the Bill, but I do not propose to argue it from that point of view.
If the Bill is for the benefit of motorists, and if it is for that benefit to take away the rights of owners, then


those rights should be propertly compensated. We have had many Public Bills lately in which, for the sake of traffic, or for the sake of car parking, those who have property rights have suffered. It is most commendable that the promoters of this Bill have proposed compensation for rights which they are proposing to take away. They set out the rights of the owners to compensation and a fair number of people are concerned. I understand that there are some 200 registered commoners. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Redhead) said there were twenty-five active commoners. I am not quite certain what he means by "active commoners". There are about 200 who have common rights. They may not exercise them, but they certainly have a right to exercise them. As he said, there are seven who really exercise those rights.
I am told that one of the graziers estimates the value of his rights of grazing there at £1,000 per annum. Therefore, it would not have been right to limit the amount of compensation payable, as was first attempted in this Bill and, indeed, is in the proviso to Clause 8. I do not know, I suppose no Member of the House knows, the exact value of the commoners' rights. Some of the rights may be of very small value; others, as I have indicated, may be of substantial value.
It is not right that we in this House should be called upon to value those rights here and now and to say that they shall not exceed £30,000. Once one puts a limit like that in a Bill those who are liable for paying compensation could allow the first claimant to have £29,999. It does not matter to those responsible for paying compensation how much they allow in one figure. They leave it for those claiming compensation to squabble it out among themselves. That would not have been a right principle to adopt, and I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West inform the House today that the promoters were prepared to withdraw that proviso. It is a proviso which has no precedent whatever, and it would have formed a very dangerous precedent for future Bills.
The promoters did have the courtesy to inform me beforehand of what the

hon. Gentleman was going to say. I am very glad that he has put it on record in this debate, and I would indicate to the House that, although I have a Motion on the Paper for an Instruction on this point to the Committee on the Bill, having regard to the assurance given by the hon. Gentleman for Walthamstow, West, I do not wish to move that Instruction.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to say just a few words in support of the Second Reading of the Bill for two main reasons. The first reason is that part of the forest, strangely enough comes within the northern part of my constituency. It must seem strange to think that the forest should stretch so far as West Ham, but, of course, Wanstead Flats is part of the forest and is in my constituency.
Another reason is that while I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that the City of London Corporation has a name for being very reactionary, and in many respects it is, I would inform him that my very first employer was the City of London Corporation. Therefore, to that extent I have to declare an interest. Moreover, my late father worked for over forty years for the City Corporation and drew a pension for over twenty-five years. My experience of the Corporation has been that on questions of general interest and in so far as it can treat its workers and staff on a fair and proper basis, it does so.

Mr. Fletcher: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Lewis: I was going on to say further that it has always been as helpful as it possibly could to the users of the forest. I talk here not of those who graze their cattle, but of the ordinary working men and women and their children who have literally no other place in the East End of London to go, other than Wanstead Flats and Epping Forest. The Corporation has always done all it could to help to support the amenities of the forest and to see that they should not be interfered with.
I agree with hon. Members who have spoken about the safeguarding of the interests of the users of the forest. I accept that, but it is rather strange that, with one exception, each of the local


borough councils which has an interest has in fact come down not only in general terms but by actual resolution in favour of the Second Readng of the Bill and of Part II. I was rather surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) say what he did about the interest which is shown for the users of the forest. I did not think that Epping Forest stretched as far as Lewisham.
My own borough council has by resolution declared itself to be completely in favour of the Bill. Incidentally, one cannot say that my authority is under pressure from the City of London Corporation because—fortunately for West Ham—we have not got one single Conservative on our council. Nevertheless, in this instance the council supports the City Corporation.
There are other issues. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) spoke of the danger of traffic accidents involving cattle. That is quite true. The cattle not only wander into back gardens, damaging fences and other property, but they cause danger to children. Cattle wandering about can be frightening. When there is a mild stampede, young children become frightened, and women who take children out in prams to the Wanstead Flats area have complained about cattle coming right up to the prams and frightening the children.
There is also the rather annoying matter of the fouling of the Wanstead Flats area. Though objection can be made to dogs fouling the pavements, that is not so bad compared with the heavier fouling by cattle. In this East End part of London there is a very active and conscientious association called the Essex Playing Fields Association which, with the co-operation and assistance of the City Corporation, has gone out of its way to reseed and returf with fine grass the playing field areas on the Wanstead Flats to enable school children to play football matches on Saturday afternoons and to allow people there to enjoy the sight and use of decent grass areas rather than mud flats.
Naturally, the cattle find that here there is beautiful succulent young grass. Why should they worry about going into the depths of the forest when they can

wander on to the Wanstead Flats where they not only eat the grass but do damage to the turf with their hooves? I cannot see what harm can be done to the seven farmers who now claim that they will lose such a great deal. It is not too much to ask that the cattle should be tethered. Cattle are tethered in other parts of the world, and it is not impossible to make watering facilities available. Obviously the cattle would not be tethered within a yard or two. They could be allowed a reasonable amount of ground to graze without causing damage and difficulty to ordinary householders who often have no more than a little patch of green at the back of the house which they call their garden. Many of them work very hard over the weekend on the garden only to find the following weekend that the cattle have broken up the fences and eaten the shrubs. That is very annoying.
I agree with what was said about compensation. What about compensation for the people who have spent their last few shillings on buying a few bulbs or seeds, and who then find their gardens destroyed by cattle? No provision is made to compensate these people.
I commend the Bill to the House. I cannot for the life of me see why there should be any objection to it. If there were any question of interfering with the rights of ordinary people to use the forest, I would be the first to oppose the Bill, but as all the local authorities concerned with the exception of one have come down in favour of the Bill, I suggest that the House ought to give it a Second Reading.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Oram: I support the Bill. The main and general case for it was so persuasively put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) that I think it merely remains for those who support the Bill to add evidence from their boroughs, and it is evidence from the Borough of East Ham that I wish to bring to the attention of the House.
My hon. Friend said, as did other hon. Members, that nearly all the local authorities directly affected by the Bill were in favour of it. I was aggrieved and surprised to hear my hon. Friend say that the exception was the Borough


of Wanstead and Woodford. He went on to say, however, that the borough was not expressing the unanimous point of view of the residents. I assure my hon. Friend that he is correct in that assertion, because I have direct evidence that some residents in that borough are very much behind the Bill because they suffer from the activities of wandering cattle, which it what we are discussing.
The Borough of East Ham has built the Aldersbrook Estate within the boundary of Wanstead and Woodford. The residents of that borough are our tenants, and on a number of occasions they have come to East Ham Town Hall to complain about cattle being a nuisance to them. Over a period of eighteen months no fewer than 10 cases were reported at the town hall. This may not seem a large number, but it must be remembered that we are marginal to Epping Forest, and authorities nearer to, or in the forest, must have had numerous complaints.
The Aldersbrook Estate to which I have referred is almost completely fenced off from anstead Flats, except for the entrance to the estate. This leads to the additional difficulty that on occasions cattle go through the entrance into the area of the estate and then have difficulty in finding their way out. This means that they roam around and cause damage in a comparatively restricted area for a considerable period of time. I understand that on the night of 23rd–24th January of this year no fewer than 25 cattle went into the area of the estate and caused a great deal of damage.
Those are the reasons why the tenants, through their association, have been getting together a petition in support of the City Corporation seeking the powers in the Bill, and it is on their behalf that I urge the House, despite the arguments put forward against it, and which certainly have not convinced me, to give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.45 p.m.

Mr Elwyn Jones: A good deal of time has passed since it could be said that while it was a crime to steal the goose from the common, it was not a crime to steal the common from the goose, and in recent decades, at any rate, we have all been very anxious to maintain commoners'

rights and to protect ancient rights in places like Epping Forest. I quite agree that it is proper that if those rights are deprived, there should be compensation for them. I further think that there should be interference with commoners' rights only where the case for the public advantage and public benefit in doing so is established to an overwhelming degree.
I think that case is made here, and I rise to support the Bill and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) on his most admirable explanation of the purposes of the Bill. I wish only to add one word to what my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) has said. It is a quaint occasion when both hon. Members for West Ham should be raising as a constituency matter the grazing of cattle, but the surprising always seems to happen in the House of Commons, and it has certainly happened here.
I wish to confirm what he has said about the real nuisance which this grazing in causing to the playing fields at Wanstead. I remember some time ago going with the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) to the opening of these playing fields, when I saw with what devotion the work had been done and what expense had been put out for these admirable playing fields. I understand that serious interference is being caused to the enjoyment of these playing fields by this nuisance. Wanstead Flats are a vital lung for that part of London, from which the residents of my constituency derive great benefit and advantage, and it is intolerable that this nuisance should deprive them of that which has been so dearly obtained for them.
Accordingly, I fully support and give a welcome to this Bill. It is necessary, it is justifiable and its provisions seem to me to be wholly reasonable.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I rise to support the Bill, but, before doing so, I should like to make a brief reference to objections which have been raised by hon. Friends of mine on this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) made a very careful and earnest plea for additional housing facilities in


his own constituency. I fully sympathise with his plea, particularly as I myself was born in Islington, and in my early days went on many periodic excursions with my mother to the then fascinating Caledonian Market. I know the area very well indeed—almost as well as my hon. Friend. As far as I could tell, the two main points in his argument were these. Firstly, additional powers should not be given to the existing City of London, but he was quite prepared to give them provided that the City Corporation made some concession regarding the Caledonian Market. As, apparently, that concession has now been granted, presumably, my hon. Friend's objection falls to the ground.

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Fletcher indicated dissent.

Mr. Sorensen: His second point was that he was very concerned with placing human rights above those of cattle. I entirely agree with him, and that is precisely the point that I apply in respect of the major part of the Bill concerning Epping Forest. I hope that on those grounds, my hon. Friend will now give substantial support to the Bill. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) also put forward a very earnest plea, based largely on theory, which was quite remote from the actual circumstances of the case. I therefore draw his attention to the remark at the end of the document signed by the Chairman of Ways and Means:
In the case of Part II of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, however, no question of acquiring common land arises, since the Corporation of the City of London already own Epping Forest by virtue of an Act of 1878. Moreover the position of the Forest, virtually surrounded as it is by built-up areas, must clearly involve special problems which may not be of general application.
I hope that that will so convince my hon. Friend as to lead him to withdraw his objection and support the Bill.
I join with others in paying tribute to the Corporation of London for its foresight, public spirit and careful supervision of this most valuable treasure, which is enjoyed by the people not only of my constituency and adjoining constituencies but of the whole London area, and further afield. Whatever we may say by way of criticism of the Corporation, that point should go on record.
The Corporation cannot be accused of desiring to whittle away or reduce the existing amenities of the forest. I have found the Corporation, if anything, over-jealous to preserve every inch of the forest. No portion of it can be acquired, even for road widening purposes, or anything of that kind, without at least an equal amount being added elsewhere, so that the forest never decreases in size. If anything, it becomes larger as time goes by.
It is true that the existing Epping Forest is only a fragment of the original forest, which at one time spread right up to the Wash. If we go back into history in order to discover who had the original title to certain lands we make some interesting discoveries. The land originally belonged to the people of this country. I dare say that my own private road—the only private road in the district which is guarded at one end by a Socialist M.P. and at the other by a Socialist councillor; a rather strange paradox—was originally a portion of forest land. If we go back into history we shall find that that applies to many portions of land around the elongated green area which is so enjoyable. The map shows how, from time to time, there must have been an eating into the forest—the exercise of squatters' rights over a certain period and then possession by private persons of what was originally public land.
I have lived in Walthamstow for nearly fifty years, and in my present house, immediately adjoining the forest, for over thirty years. I confess that in my opinion for a long time the sight of the cattle added to the amenities of the district. Indeed, it is still vary pleasant to look from my study window across the forest and to see a number of cattle pleasantly and quietly browsing. On one occasion I referred rather facetiously, and not with the innuendo that some people thought, to the fact that as I looked from my study window I could see large numbers of my constituents. I quickly added "four-legged ones".
This pleasant scene, which I still witness from time to time, nevertheless began to lose some of its attractiveness as time went by. This process began some years ago, when I was awakened early one morning—at about half-past four—and descended from my bedroom in pyjamas and dressing gown in order


to chase a dozen cows down the road. I could not catch them. They turned into Wood Street, at the bottom of the road. In the end I managed to persuade half a dozen of my bovine fellow-creatures to turn back. The rest were lost in the wilds of the district which is represented adequately by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey), who can speak for Wanstead and Woodford even more eloquently than can the Wanstead and Woodford Council.
Such events gradually modify one's aesthetic enjoyment. Even when the Post Office acquired a small plot of land at the side of my house and erected a fence, the cattle still came through. Last summer my son carefully planted a number of rose bushes in the front garden, only to discover, two or three weeks later, that the whole lot had been consumed by cattle. I only hope that the roses affected the milk of the few feminine cattle in one way or another. The same has happened more than once when they have broken through fences into my garden. Early one morning my wife found that a half a dozen of these beasts had trampled over the whole garden—including what we grandiosely call the lawn, although it is only a grass patch. I mention this because it is representative of the experience of large numbers of other people.
There are two grounds on which we support this Bill. One is the nuisance caused and the destruction of domestic amenities. The other is the danger which is caused by these cattle. I have received a long list of accidents and the possibility of accidents. 142 in the last two and a half years, but I could add materially to that number. Although my constituency may not be so adversely affected as that of Walthamstow, West or Walthamstow, East, it still is affected in some measure. I suppose that in the last three or four years I have had fifty letters complaining bitterly about the danger and nuisance which is caused. With very little investigation I am sure that I could add substantially to the 142 occasions on which a record of information has been furnished.
One only has to look at my constituency to realise that, whatever may have been the aesthetic value of cattle wandering through the forest, it is now more than counter-balanced by the

absurdity I shall describe. At Whipps Cross Corner, where I live, there is a busy thoroughfare with a constant stream of traffic which every morning and evening for an hour and a half or two hours hardly stops until thirty or forty cattle wander in leisurely fashion across that stream of traffic holding it up for long periods. That in itself is sufficient to show that whatever might have been acceptable and justifiable in the past no longer now applies.
We should not tolerate it in Westminster. We should not dream of allowing cattle to wander down Whitehall holding up the traffic. Why should we tolerate it in a highly urbanised area round the forest? The area round the forest is far more urbanised than it was twenty or thirty years ago. Every bit of available land is taken up for housing and the whole nature of the area has completely altered.
I hope that the House will give a unanimous Second Reading to this Bill. Years ago it was appreciated that cattle could be a danger and a nuisance. Remnants of pounds remain not far from my house. Cattle were driven into them when they wandered too far from the roadways. Because of the relatively smaller number of police than we need, that is not done in these days. I have felt inclined more than once to drive cattle into a pound. I could put only two or three in and thirty or forty would get away. Even then I should be responsible for providing them with fodder and water or I should be prosecuted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for impounding animals without due care. I mention this to show that in bygone days it was recognised that wandering cattle could be a danger and a nuisance. That is far more so today.
Therefore, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. West. Whatever objections there may be to this Bill, they are secondary to the urgent need to see that those who enjoy the forest and reside near it shall no longer have to face this danger and nuisance.

8.59 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): If, as


the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) has said, it is strange that the two hon. Members representing West Ham divisions should both intervene in the same debate and speak about grazing cattle, it is equally surprising that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be concerned with a City of London (Various) Powers Bill.
It seems that the Bill has rural implications which have aroused considerable interest. Therefore, it is perhaps not inappropriate that I should make a brief intervention. I know that this is essentially a House of Commons question, but there are two topics to which I want to refer, one in the Bill and the other not in the Bill. I hope that it will be accepted that I do so in explanation and not in any sense of advocacy.
First, as to Epping forest. My right hon. Friend does not wish to express any views, nor, indeed, is he in a position to do so, on the merits of the Corporation's proposals for the forest which are contained in Part II. With regard to all commons he is in a special position. Under the various general enactments relating to common land, the Minister of Agriculture has functions which are quasi-judicial, but he has no initiative. It is for the interests concerned with a particular common to put forward proposals relating to it.
In considering any such proposals which are put to him, my right hon. Friend is required by Statute to have regard, on the one hand, to the effect on private interests in the common and, on the other, to what is described as the "benefit of the neighbourhood". I mention this because I suggest that tonight the House should approach the Corporation's proposals from the same standpoints as those from which my right hon. Friend would have to approach them if the initiative were taken by other commoners and a proposal was put to him and it was his responsibility.
I have referred to the general legislation relating to commons, but some commons, of which Epping Forest is one, have their own code of private legislation. Whatever may have happened before 1878, the City Corporation has been chiefly responsible for preserving Epping Forest as open common land

since then. The 1878 Act gives powers to the Corporation to manage the forest as conservators, and the Minister of Agriculture has no jurisdiction under the Act, nor is he mentioned in it. If the Corporation requires fresh or amended powers, it must seek them from Parliament, as it is doing tonight. I say this without in any way expressing a judgment on the merits of the present proposals.
It has been suggested that the proposals of the City Corporation ought to be put back until they can be considered against the background of the Government's proposed legislation arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land. This is not wholly relevant. The Minister has already announced that legislation is in preparation to give effect to the Royal Commission's recommendations on the registration of common land and common rights, as a first step. My right hon. Friend answered a Question in the House not long ago.
Hon. Members will know that I cannot give any date as to when they can expect such a Bill to be introduced. However, such a Bill is unlikely to apply to Epping Forest, because under the special Acts administered by the City Corporation the extent of the land and the extent of the common rights over it are already fully established. Therefore, there would appear to be few respects in which the first Bill which the House may soon be considering will have any effect in relation to Epping Forest.
As I understand it, the point at issue on the Bill tonight is whether the commoners' rights should be restricted in any way, subject to compensation, because of difficulties that the grazing of cattle is alleged to cause to local residents. This is a local issue, no doubt of the greatest importance not only to those most immediately concerned but to the whole neighbourhood. It ought to be considered on its merits by the House and, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, by a Select Committee. However, it does not seem to me to be the sort of issue which would justify my right hon. Friend taking a particular line either for or against these proposals.
The second topic to which I want to refer is the Caledonian Market and abattoir. One hon. Member has already


declared his interest. I will declare mine. I am a Freeman of the City of London. I am also a member of the Skinners' Company.

Mr. A. Lewis: So are the Tory Government.

Mr. Vane: It may be thought that I therefore have a special interest, but I assure the House that the Skinners' Company—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what it means?

Mr. Vane: I am coming to that.
The Skinners' Company has never been interested in calf skins, with or without warble fly punctures which may arise from slaughtering in this or any other market, but it was concerned in medieval times with furs like minever. I have declared that interest, but I hope that the House will appreciate that it is an entirely academic one.
My right hon. Friend is concerned to see that the present abattoir—or, for that matter, any abattoir—is either brought up to a satisfactory standard or is closed, but it is for the City, and not for him, to decide in the first place whether to discontinue the provision of slaughtering facilities or to rebuild the slaughterhouse elsewhere, or to bring it up to proper standards where it is now sited.
The planning decisions which are relevant here are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Reference has already been made to the fact that there is no disagreement in principle over the planning proposals to use the site when redeveloped for houses, schools and an open space, but not for an abattoir. The question uppermost in some hon. Members' minds tonight, therefore, turns on the question of timing: when is this redevelopment likely to come about?
The City Corporation has for some time been in negotiation with traders about the terms on which it might build a modern slaughterhouse on another site. Whatever the outcome may be here, and whether or not the City decides to go ahead, is a question for the City and for the City alone, and not for my right hon. Friend. But I have the assurance of the City of London that it

intends to propose legislation in the next Session of Parliament to deal with the Caledonian Market site for purposes other than a market and slaughterhouse. I hope that these few words of mine will be of some help to the House in considering whether to give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: We are all very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having guided us so well and so clearly in such a very difficult matter. I confess that I find much more difficulty than do most of my hon. Friends in making up my mind. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this is an interesting example of what happens when one tries to live a rural life in the middle of a great built-up city; it is bound to cause trouble and difficulty. People who get romantic about the rural life might pause to wonder whether there is all that amount of fun in it when they face some of these problems which, I suppose, are not completely unknown in other parts of the country as well as here.
From what has been said by hon. Members on both sides, there is no doubt that there is here a real local problem which must be looked at sympathetically and carefully in order to try to hold a fair balance between the different interests involved. I was startled to hear what that kind of interest was. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that for one farmer these grazing rights were worth £1,000 a year. That struck me as being a very large amount, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will remember it at the time of the next Annual Price Review, because it certainly made me think that farming had some profit in it, after all.
We are also dealing with tradition The City of London should be very careful before it interferes with traditional rights. There is not really all that amount of difference between a cow wandering through the streets of Wan-stead or Walthamstow and a City Corporation continuing to exist in a modern world. If the City Corporation is to allow Parliament to remove these traditional rights, it is setting a precedent that may possibly go very far.

Mr. Ede: Does my hon. Friend not know that but for the City of London spending a huge


fortune in the 'sixties of the last century there would be no Epping Forest today?

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to get involved with my right hon. Friend in a discussion on the history of the City of London.

Mr. Ede: This is its one good deed.

Mr. MacColl: If my right hon. Friend is in any doubt about good deeds I would commend to him some of the writings of Lord Morrison of Lambeth.
Two general questions, which suggest that this is not the appropriate way to tackle the problem, have emanated from our discussion. The first was touched upon by the Parliamentary Secretary: whether or not general legislation should be introduced before a drastic change is made in the balance of rights in Epping Forest. That is for each hon. Member to weigh up and consider. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that in this Parliament, or, at any rate, next Session, some general legislation would be introduced.
The second point is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). Is it wise to give the City of London increased powers or. indeed, any powers at all when the whole future of London government is in the melting pot? I find that a difficult one, especially in view of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots), who tried to have it both ways, saying that he was against the reform of London government, but was equally against allowing the City to have these powers.
If we are to have this reform, and the House accepts the idea, I still have sufficient faith in the sanity of the House and in public opinion to believe that no reform of London government will leave the City of London in its present position. I speak as an individual and I cannot believe that that is possible. Therefore, I cannot believe that it is right to extend the powers of the City of London at a time when its position is so precarious and vulnerable.
It is worth recalling that there are precedents. A few years ago the

L.C.C. wanted to take over the district nursing service in the County of London which had, in many places, been within voluntary organisations which were finding it difficult to carry on. This was a vital question, for it affected public health. The Minister of Health refused to give permission to the L.C.C. to do this precisely on these grounds—that the reform of London government was so near that it was wrong to add to the powers that already existed.
I can think of another example; the application of the building byelaws in the Public Health Act which was passed last Session. In that Measure changes were made for the provinces but were not applied to London—although, ironically, they were applied to Middlesex—because, it was said, the future of London government was so uncertain that it was undesirable to give any further powers.
With these precedents the House must consider whether it is questionable or wise, through a Private Bill of this sort, to give these powers to the City of London. That is entirely a matter for each hon. Member. In any case, this has been a valuable debate and has helped to clear up some of the issues involved and, to many of us, has drawn aside the curtain on the fascinating sides of life in London.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. John Harvey: This has been a fascinating debate. It has enabled my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as he said himself, to bring the authority of his office to bear on the affairs of the City of London. It has enabled the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), somehow, to talk about an agricultural price review within the context of this Bill. It has enabled my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Mainland) to remind us that his great-grandfather sat in this House at a time when Epping Forest was just as much in the news as it is tonight. It has enabled the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) to take us on what I would describe as an interesting detour via the Caledonian Market. We then come back to the hon. Member for Widnes talking about the merits of the Corporation of the City of London per se.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House who know anything about the history of Greater London will agree that what the City Corporation has done for London in the acquisition and the subsequent care and maintenance of Epping Forest has been a wonderful thing for which we should all be grateful. There could, perhaps, be a divergence of view between the two sides of the House as to the future of the City Corporation, but I cannot see that that is any excuse for trying to shelve the issue before the House tonight. What might or might not happen to the City Corporation some time in future is not exactly relevant to the pressing problems which some of us have been trying to bring before the House in this debate.
In so far as any controversy remains, it centres around Clause 2 of the Bill. I therefore hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I confine my remarks entirely to that Clause. The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) suggested that this Clause should be deleted and that the Bill had done some special pleading in this Clause. It was odd that he should say that, because I proposed to suggest that the hon. Gentleman was doing a lot of special pleading in his own remarks. However, I hope that I shall be able to deal with some of his worries and fears to his reasonable satisfaction.
I wish to emphasise at the outset what has been said already, namely, that Part II of the Bill would never have been necessary if the cattle had been content to stay in the forest or if voluntary means could have been found to keep them in the forest. The problem is not simply one of inconvenience to people resident in or near the forest, nor of danger to people using the highways traversing the forest, as is somewhat naively put forward in the petition submitted by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Wanstead and Woodford Borough Council. The problem is one of the danger, nuisance and quite serious damage wrought by these animals as they wander through built-up suburban streets and along the busy, congested main roads of North-East London.
The City Corporation, the promoters of the Bill, have issued a statement in support of this. A glance at the map

on page 7 of the statement on behalf of the promoters will show the interwoven pattern of forest land, some of it only five miles from the City of London itself and the heavily built-up suburban areas through which it sprawls. Some of the most tempting grazing land in the forest lies to the south—that is. in the Woodford, East Ham and West Ham areas. But perhaps even more tempting to the cattle than this grazing land are the shrubs, flowers and young sprouting plants of suburban gardens.
The plain fact is that to keep these animals out if they are determined to get in is more than the defences of most suburban dwellings can cope with. To argue that householders should have been made aware of this situation, as is argued in one of the petitions, when they moved into the area is nonsense and ignores the fact that these animals wander astonishingly far afield out of the forest to which they should confine their activities.
In the 1959 debate, I gave many details of the damage which they had caused over a very large area. I mentioned the tragic death of a young constituent of mine who collided with one of these animals when driving home one night. Between 1st January, 1959, and 10th March this year, there have been sixty-four road accidents notified to the police involving straying cattle.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, South suggested that there had not been many accidents. How many is "many"? The hon. Member might have agreed that sixty-four was more than enough. In paragraph 11 of the Petition against the Bill, the Wanstead and Woodford Borough Council—and I am sure that the whole House will be delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in his place this evening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—blandly states:
Your Petitioners deny that these animals cause nuisance.
There have been sixty-four recorded road accidents involving one human fatality and other human injuries; sixty-four recorded road accidents, all of them killing or maiming cattle; more than a hundred incidents involving cattle reported to the police over the same period and dozens more complaints made during that time to individual Members of


Parliament, to local authorities and to the Corporation of the City of London, and yet the Wanstead and Woodford Borough Council solemnly denies that these animals cause nuisance.
If ways could have been found of preventing this nuisance, this damage and this danger by keeping the animals in the forest, I repeat that the Bill would never have been necessary; but the interwoven pattern of forest and suburbia makes this impossible short of complete enclosure of the forest. This, we are all agreed, is undesirable and, I would say, impracticable. The Epping Forest Act, 1878, imposes upon the Corporation of the City of London a clear duty to keep the forest unenclosed and unbuilt on as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. This the Corporation has consistently endeavoured to do, but it is rightly no less concerned that its management of the forest should be acceptable to persons residing in the forest area.
It is little short of effrontery to suggest that the City Corporation, with its great and selfless record in preserving the forest for the benefit and enjoyment of Londoners, could in any way be conniving at destroying the valuable heritage which it has so generously endowed for us. My view is that the Bill, by reconciling the changing needs of urban society with the preservation of the unchanging beauty of the forest, will further enhance the reputation for good management which the City Corporation so justly deserves.
It has been argued, and the hon. Member for Lewisham. South sought to argue it, that the very nature of the forest could change if the cattle ceased to wander. This ecological argument should not, however, be taken too seriously. The efficient control of briar, birch and thorn by wandering cattle in Epping Forest would require nearer 2,000 head of cattle in the area concerned than the 220 or so currently involved. This is even assuming that the cattle could be persuaded to do all their grazing in the forest rather than in suburban gardens. If we already have a formidable toll of road accidents and other nuisance with 200 head of cattle, what would be the position if we brought in the 2,000 that would be

necessary for ecological control? Traffic would be brought virtually to a standstill.
For many years, the City Corporation has had to resort to mechanical cutting and clearing on a large scale. The Corporation's considerable experience in this work makes it confident that the whole task could well be performed mechanically. We should be grateful that the Corporation is prepared to do it.
The problem has become worse because the number of cattle at large has doubled between 1955 and the present day. In 1959, which year saw the largest number of cattle wandering in the forest—279 of them—we had the greatest crop of accidents and complaints. To contemplate grazing more cattle, as some people would advocate, at a time when the number of vehicles on the roads is increasing month by month would be little short of lunacy. There have already been enough accidents.

Mr. C. Johnson: Do I understand from what the hon. Member is saying that he now refutes the evidence submitted on this point by the two witnesses for the City Corporation, Lieut-Col. Buxton and Col. Chappell, who stated exactly the contrary?

Mr. Harvey: I am coming to the question of the evidence given before the Royal Commission. I want at the moment to suggest that there have been enough accidents and maiming of cattle to warrant action. I hope that the hon. Member will not dissent from that on the information I have given this evening.
There are some who seek to argue that the tethering of cattle would be cruel. Is it less cruel than to enable them to roam freely in heavy traffic? 1 have seen them terrified among the nose-to-tail traffic returning through the forest on an evening or at weekends, and 1 have seen hooligans attempt to stampede them in that traffic. Nothing could be more cruel than the ordeal to which these animals have been subject already, and their hearts might beat more calmly if they were tethered in the pastoral heart of the forest.
I do not feel that I need refer to the question of compensation raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) except to say that the


City Corporation has behaved as generously over this as over all its dealings with the forest.
The case made by the horn. Member for Lewisham, South about the difference between the evidence given before the Royal Commission and the state of affairs that we are putting forward tonight is fairly simply explained. At the time of the Royal Commission it was hoped by all of us, the City Corporation and the Members of Parliament involved, that a voluntary solution had in fact been found to this problem, and all of us, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West said at the beginning of the debate, hoped at that time that a voluntary solution would be found to which we could willingly subscribe. In point of fact, that voluntary solution has eluded us. The number of cattle has actually doubled since 1955 while the volume of road transport has been going up at the same time. The difficulty, which some of us foresaw then—that road transport is increasing month by month and year by year and, therefore, that the problem must get worse, even with the same number of cattle as now—has come to be appreciated by everyone. It is on these grounds that one has tonight to take a somewhat different stand from that taken in 1957.
There remains the need to re-emphasise that this Bill has nothing in common with the St. Neots Bill. That was clearly brought out in the Report by the Chairman of Ways and Means. There is no question of acquiring common land. There are, as the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) has said, special local problems—this was emphasised by the Chairman of Ways and Means in his Report—that are not of general application. The Chairman of Ways and Means went on to stress that the passage of this Bill must not be regarded by other local authorities as a precedent for promoting similar legislation where the special considerations that I have sought to place before the House tonight do not apply.
In answer to the criticism that this Bill is premature in that it anticipates Government legislation arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission, I would stress that my right hon. Friend

the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it clear on 6th November last that legislation was being prepared to make provision for the registration of claims in respect of common land—that is the legislation to which reference has been made tonight—and he also made clear that five years would be allowed for the registration of claims and objections.
Such is the management of the City Corporation that all this information is already recorded or readily ascertainable from existing records in respect of Epping Forest. There is no need to wait another five years or more for legislation affecting the forest which we can speed on its way tonight.
I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to bear in mind that, at the present rate, if it gets no worse, to wait five years before we do anything would involve another 100 road accidents. Is that what the hon. Member for Lewisham, South wants, or what any of us want? I think probably not.
Not the least important factor for us to note is that the commoners themselves have withdrawn their objections to the Bill, and there is, in the circumstances, surely no need for any hon. Member to oppose a Second Reading, which will send the Bill to a Committee where any Amendment that might be thought necessary can be adequately dealt with. I call upon the House to endorse its confidence in the good management of the forest by the City Corporation, and to recognise the special nature of the local problems that this Bill seeks to deal with, by giving it the unopposed Second Reading which it so richly deserves.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the House will allow me to instruct myself about the Instructions which were put on the Order Paper. Does the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) wish to move his?

Mr. C. Johnson: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)? He is not now here.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: My constituency is affected in more ways than one by this Bill. That part of the Bill which seeks to close the Dudley Tunnel, which is the longest canal tunnel still navigable in this country, is the subject of an Instruction to be moved by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), and I shall find no difficulty in supporting him.
I hope very much that the House will, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, so instruct the Committee. But I want to deal with another aspect of the Bill, which the Second Reading debate allows me to bring to the notice of the House. This is in connection with the policy of the Minister of Transport and the British Transport Commission.
Last October, there were rumours in Dudley that Dudley Station was to be closed. On 25th October, I wrote to the Chairman of the Commission, Dr. Beeching, stating that I had been approached by a number of people, including railway employees, who had said that there were strong rumours that the station would close. About a fortnight later, I received a letter saying that a proposal was to be submitted to the independent transport users' consultative committee in the West Midlands area to withdraw the passenger train service between Stourbridge and Wolverhampton.
I did not get an answer from Dr. Beeching as to whether Dudley Station was to close, but the letter I got from one of his assistants was to the effect that one line would be closed, and it concluded by saying:
If, as a result of similar investigations, it is considered that any other train services now operating to and from Dudley Station should be withdrawn, the same course should be followed.
My first complaint is that it must have been known at that time that the proposal to withdraw the Stourbridge-Wolverhampton service was to be

accompanied by a review and that similar proposals were to be formulated in connection with the Snow Hill-Dudley-Old Hill line.
Last weekend I received a communication from the Transport Commission, which, in all the circumstances, I think, bordered on the verge of being an impertinence, because I was invited to attend with civic dignitaries—that is the term which was used—and Press representatives, a cocktail party and public forums to deal with Western Rail Week. I wrote forthwith to the Commission and I said I was very grateful for information about Western Rail Week, but I wondered whether it could be made a little clearer what the policy of the Commission was because, I said:
If the policy of the Commission is followed through it seems to me there are going to be very few trains serving my constituency and certainly very limited local services.
I also said:
I should like to know on what date it is proposed that Dudley Station is to be finally closed and, in the meantime, to what extent services between Dudley and Birmingham are to be cut.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to say who sent that letter out?

Mr. Wigg: Yes, that was sent out by Mr. R. V. Hilton, on behalf of the District Traffic Manager of the Western Region.
I got a reply by return, for which I am grateful, stating, in the last paragraph:
I would also inform you that another passenger service affecting your constituency, that between Walsall and Dudley, is also under review at the moment.
So the rumours which 1 heard last October are true, but the full particulars of those passenger withdrawals were not tabled at the time, although they were known.
I want to break my narrative at this point to ask the House to consider the Annual Report of the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee which was available in the Vote Office last week. I would remind the House that under the procedures which are outlined in the "Handbook on the Transport Users' Consultative Committee" it is clear that the competition we are engaged in and which is organised by


Dr. Beeching is such that, to use a racing analogy, the horse has been doped, the jockey has been nobbled, Dr. Beeching has "squared" the starter and the judge, but that, apart from these considerations, it is a perfectly fair race. [Laughter.] Oh, yes, and he alters the distance of the race while the race is in progress.

Mr. Charles Mapp: And what about the bookies?

Mr. Wigg: About the bookmakers, I do not know. My hon. Friend probably knows more about them than I do.
The procedure laid down here is that when the proposals are tabled for services to be curtailed or withdrawn they are to be submitted to the area committees and then those recommendations are sent to the central committee. It is also clear that the considerations under which the committee can act are extremely limited indeed. It cannot take into account the social implications; it cannot take into the account the wider economic implications; it cannot take into account that this country may end up with no railway services at all—or any bus services. The only considerations which it has to take into account are whether a loss is proved on the service which is under consideration and whether there is any question of hardship.
I shall come back in a moment to my tale about Dudley, but before I do I want to look further at the Report which came out last week, for in it it is made quite clear that the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee was really worried about the way some of the proposals had been tabled. Paragraph 15 says:
For example, in June last the London Midland Region proposed to withdraw passenger train facilities on one of the two routes between Rugby and Leicester. Only during the course of the discussions did it come to light that the regional management also had it in mind substantially to reduce the services on the other route as well. We feel that it would have been more appropriate to deal with both routes together.

Mr. A. R. Wise: I am deeply interested in this subject. They went further. The Transport Commission give an undertaking, when it applied for the closing of the Midlands route between Rugby and Leicester, that it would provide adequate services on the

old Central line and it already has a plan for shutting the services down. The first train for those who want to go to work in Leicester leaves at 10.45 a.m.

Mr. Wigg: I should have thought that this was the first question which the Minister had to answer.
The Report of the Central Transport Users' Committee states:
Burnley (Manchester Road) provided a further example. Burnley, a town of some 80,000 population, was served by four railway stations. Manchester Road Station, one of the four, was proposed for closure without any reference to the future of the other three. Both the Central Committee and the Area Committee felt that in the case of a large town like Burnley, the Railway Region should have submitted a comprehensive plan for the future of the railway system running through it …
Later, in paragraph 18, the Report says:
Piecemeal closures are also liable to prove embarrassing to the planning arrangements of local authorities, which should be agreed and co-ordinated with those of the railways.
The chairman made it clear at a Press conference that in his view the closing of stations and the shutting down of services were no solution to the problem. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Report particulars are given of the curtailments which have taken place and paragraph 11 of the Report says:
Major closures may be justifiable, but among the minor closures are border-line cases which involve the loss of much goodwill to British Railways, and where there is room to doubt whether the financial benefit is commensurate.… The closure policy is sometimes spoken of as if it is one of the main solutions for the troubles of the Commission. It should be viewed in the proper perspective, and in relation to the whole picture.
Paragraph 12 of the Report says:
We are very conscious of the effect which the extensive modernisation now being carried out on British Railways will have upon their efficiency. The policy of closure has its place. but it is a negative one…
Paragraph 13, speaking of the Transport Commission, ends:
,… we hope that they will always make every reasonable effort to attract more passengers to a branch before they have resort to its closure.
The policy put forward by the Chairman, Sir Ronald Garrett, seems to me wise and one which I should have thought would have commanded the attention of all hon. Members, because sooner or later we shall all feel the chopper in our constituencies.
One aspect which worries me considerably is that part of the Report which deals with representations from trade unions. I should have thought that trade unionists were vitally concerned in this. Members of trade unions employed on the railways should be directly concerned because their livelihood is affected. A man suddenly finds his livelihood gone and he is faced with changing his job or moving elsewhere. But in the West Midlands we are also concerned because trade unionists are the people who use the railways. If this policy is to be carried out, goodness knows how they are to get to work. But that is not the concern of Dr. Beeching. He has said publicly, and it is implicit in his policy, that all he is concerned about is removing those parts of the railways which are not currently making a profit. The overall effect of this policy is not a matter for him, and obviously it is not a matter for the Minister, because whatever subject the Minister is interested in he is certainly not interested in transport. That was one of my earliest conclusions when I began research on this subject.
Paragraphs 22 and 23 of this Report states that the Committee is placed in difficulties because it is asked to receive representations from employees of British Railways through the trade unions. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House would have supported that policy with enthusiasm. I should have thought that it was one of the functions of the trades councils, and, indeed chambers of commerce, to make their views known on this vital subject. But we are told here that having consulted those of their members who represent the Trades Union Congress, they
came to the conclusion that employees of the Commission should not be regarded as users but as agents of the provider of the services and facilities of the British Transport Commission.
They go on to argue that for them to consider representations from trade unionists would be to interfere between employer and employee and they are therefore against doing so,

Mr. Walter Monslow: It is right that they cannot make direct representations to the consultative

committee, but it is also true that the respective trade unions within the railway industry are at the moment making representations to Dr. Beeching on the subject we are discussing. They are making representations about the economic and sociological implications of this policy.

Mr. Wigg: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that interruption, but again he is not aware of the facts, because the trade unions were never told about them. They were never told that these proposals were to be tabled. I was in my constituency last weekend and I talked to my friends about this. A member of the N.U.R. said that the trade unions in South Wales and Scotland were objecting to this. Of course they are, but they are objecting when it is too late. The time when the trade unions should be brought in, and when the public should be brought in, is when the proposals are being formulated. The community should be given the opportunity to know what is going on. Because of the breakdown in the procedure and negotiating machinery at the top level, and because of the policy that is adumbrated here, there is no opportunity for consultation in any sense that I would understand.
I come back to Dr. Beeching and the proposals that were put forward. It was originally squeezed out of him. It was dragged out of him. It was wheedled out of him piecemeal, and only now do we learn—I am not sure that my constituents know it even now—in a third-hand sort of way that proposals going forward are to close Dudley station. The procedure is that the British Transport Commission, having made up its mind, tables its proposals with the consultative committee. The secretary, a very courteous man named Mr. Pearson, sent me a copy of the document prepared by the Commission. Dr. Beeching is highly paid, and I have no doubt that he is worth every penny of it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: What?

Mr. Wigg: I have no doubt that he is, because the Minister would never have given him that money had he not been worth it. But for an incompetent document, this proposal that was submitted to the consultative committee just about


takes the biscuit. The case is not argued. The reasons put forward are insubstantial. They would be laughed out of court.

Mr. Hale: What is he worth?

Mr. Wigg: I am saying that he gets a high salary, and one would have hoped that the affairs of the British Transport Commission would have been handled more competently at the administrative level than this document shows. When one considers the issues involved, one is not being unreasonable in making that point.
My attitude to these problems is to try to ascertain the facts. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) accepts that these closures are necessary, and on the radio last week I heard him say that he thought that fares should not be increased. I am not capable of coming to conclusions of this sort until I have ascertained the facts. I therefore tried to inform myself of the principles on which Dr. Beeching, the Minister, and my right hon. Friend were operating.
I made a most amazing discovery. I thought that there would have been traffic surveys of the whole country so that the economic general staff on the Front Bench opposite would know what was going on, and what the cumulative effect of this policy would be. But what did I discover? I discovered that the only road-rail survey that has taken place in Great Britain is one that was carried out by the Dartington Hall Trustees, partially financed by the local authority and by the chairman of the North-Western Transport Users' Consultative Committee, who was so public-spirited that, out of his own pocket, he paid for this road-rail survey. Apart from that survey, there has been no road-rail survey anywhere in these islands at all. Indeed, the only other survey was one on the future highway needs of South Wales, which has been carried out by the Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouthshire at a cost of £11,000.
So I went to my friends in Dudley, and my friends in Dudley, as here, come from both the political parties, and I got both sides to agree to put forward a proposal that was sponsored by the Dudley Council. This noted the steps to be taken in regard to the proposed closure, and further stated that it was

agreed to try to promote a survey of the immediate and future needs of the area. Dudley is a small county borough of 60,000 people, and, although I am very glad and very proud to see that it has taken the lead in this matter, it was obviously too big for Dudley to carry out. If it was to succeed, we had to bring Birmingham and Wolverhampton into it, and this would seem to me to be the commonsense way of doing it. It was one which I thought would command the attention of the Minister, if not his support. I should have thought that we should have been getting down to basic needs if we got the local authority to take the lead in a closely-knit conurbation like the West Midlands, and particularly if we could bring Birmingham into association with it.
I am very glad indeed that the Town Clerk of Dudley this morning received a letter from the Town Clerk of Birmingham in which it was stated that the General Purposes Committee had looked at the matter, and had decided that that authority was prepared to consider participating in a survey of the immediate and future transport needs of the area. I should have thought that this was the foundation of a common-sense policy, which I hope would commend itself to my hon. Friends and hon. Members on both sides of the House, for reasons which I shall give in a minute. One of the tragic things about this situation is that I can now see the slippery slope down which this country is going. Let me tell the House where my researches have taken me.
At the very time when the Transport Commission is coming forward with a proposal which is going to destroy or obliterate the commuter services throughout our part of the West Midlands, what else has happened? The Minister of Housing and Local Government is writing to the local authorities in Worcestershire, Shropshire and Warwickshire, and is asking them, in a matter of weeks, that proposals should be put forward for the private building of 100,000 houses, because 350,000 people are to be decanted over the green belt, but within easy reach of Birmingham, the policy being—and this is implicit in the correspondence I have here—to hold industry in Birmingham


and turn 350,000 people out and let them commute backwards and forwards at the very moment when we are tearing up one of the means by which they can do so.
I should have thought that this was "nuts", but who am I to criticise? Dr. Beeching gets £24,000 a year, and the Minister is quite satisfied. Again, that is not the end of the story. Today, the Transport Users' Consultative Committee met in Birmingham to consider the first proposal concerning the Stourbridge-Wolverhampton line, and recommended that this proposal should go through. Again, I am not surprised, because in its terms of reference, the Transport Commission, in this sloppy document which it has produced, has stated that there was a loss.
Nobody knows whether or not there is a loss in real terms. No one has made any attempt to make the railways pay, but it is asserted that there is a loss. All that had to be done was to demonstrate that there was no hardship, so the Midland Red turned up to give evidence. If ever there was a case of Satan giving evidence in defence of sin this was it. The Midland Red turned up to give evidence that when the railways go it will be quite within the Midland Red's capacity to handle the extra traffic. In January of this year, however, the Midland Red went to the Traffic Commissioners—and I have copies of the relevant correspondence here—and asked for permission to curtail the bus services on this very route.
Here is a pretty picture. The railway passenger services are to go, there are plans for the Government to decant 350,000 people over into the green belt, and the Midland Red says, "We must curtail the services because we cannot get the operating staff." That is an odd sort of argument, because it managed to get the operating staff to run buses at cut rates down the M.1. But who am I to make much of a small point like that.
My researches went further. It is clear that if we look at events in other countries we see as in a mirror what will happen here in the future. At the moment when, apparently, it is the policy of both parties to curtail services and accept the necessity to raise fares, it is fascinating to discover what is happening

in the United States. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall may have noted that the London County Council is carrying out a traffic survey. I am sure that he will be interested to know that it is headed by an American. I have managed to get hold of three recent American reports.

Mr. Monslow: My hon. Friend has referred to what the Labour Party does in not opposing this policy. I was a member of the Committee which dealt with the Transport Bill, and I definitely opposed it.

Mr. Wigg: I am glad to hear that. I put down a Motion on the Order Paper and received support from some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). If my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) supports the Motion, I hope that before the debate is out he will make his position clear. What I have tried to discover is the official attitude of my party to the closures of railway lines. If I am wrong in what I say I shall be glad to know it. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall will put the matter right.
My knowledge is entirely superficial, but I have experience of what is happening in my constituency, and I have studied the reports to which I have referred. I agree with what the Americans say, namely, that in modern society a transport system is roughly equivalent to blood in man. It is a circulatory system, and if it is interfered with the patient is likely to the of thrombosis. That is true. The old arguments that went on about the merits of road and rail transport are out of date. We have to look at all these services as complementary.
I want to tell the House what happened in Philadelphia, which has the finest and most advanced basis network of transport facilities in the United States. The passenger operations over that network began to go through exactly the process that ours is now going through, and the effects of the policies adopted in the United States were the same as the effects of those being adopted by the Commission, namely, passenger operations became inadequate for present needs, and the position became


worse, with the result that the railways began to decline. The response of the railways was two-fold. First, services were curtailed, as has been the case here, and then fares were raised. The result was that more and more people were driven off the railways.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Sea Fish Industry Bill and the British Transport Commission Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Hay.]

Orders of the Day — BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Wigg: An agreement was successfully negotiated with two rail-road carriers, the Pennsylvania Company and the Reading Company. For the sum of 320,000 dollars, the estimated out of pocket cost, the railroads operated for a twelve month period and proceeded to reduce fares by 40 per cent. At the same time, the local bus fares were tied in at reduced rates. The bus services were linked to the railway service so that for a total of 50 cents a person could ride to the railway station on a bus, take a train to the terminal, and then go to his office by bus.
The success of this project increased the use of commuter trains by 30 per cent. and decreased the use of passenger automobiles. In the course of a year it was estimated that there were 2,000 fewer cars a day in the stream of traffic through the city centre. This was a pragmatic question. The question whether it was a Socialist or a Socialist-cum-capitalist measure, is for the purpose of my argument, beside the point, but here was a situation which was desperate in Philadelphia which was solved by measures which seemed to be common sense and which were entirely successful.
The conclusions in the evidence before Congress have an application for this country. The point is made that in the

United States at present the population shift from rural to urban areas has accelerated quite remarkably. At present, there is no less than 661 of the population living in urban areas, but it is estimated that by 1975 of the 215 million Americans 80 per cent. will be concentrated in 160 urban areas.
To rely on private transportation, which means the automobile.…
again, I quote the words in these Reports:
is foolish indeed, and will ultimately be fatal.
It is said that if the present rate of road development and of building automobiles continues, in the 160 urban centres, by 1975, there will be concentrated 100 million automobiles, which will set up the biggest traffic jam that the world has ever seen, for it will become bumper-to-bumper throughout the whole area.
What is true of Philadelphia is also contained in this quite remarkable report on commuter transportation, which is a study of passenger transportation in the New Jersey, New York and Connecticut area. I shall not weary the House going into the details, but what is absolutely clear is that the point is reached in those areas—here, I quote a phrase which illustrates the problem—where, if the people who work in the Empire State Building were to take their cars when they go to work there it would be necessary to build another Empire State building to accommodate the cars.
This report is the last word in sophistication. It shows what a competent people can do when they get down to brass tacks. They have shown the number of people who move hour by hour. It also graphically says that if the 200,000 commuters—that is, half the people in the central business district who live outside New York—who travel by rail at present were to travel by road there would be no road space left during peak hours and many of them would not get to work at all.
This report also demonstrates that there is a commuter crisis in every aspect of travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific. All sorts of devices have been worked out to meet this. The underlying idea on which these reports are based is that


there should be grants to enable experiments to be made. It has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that a healthy transport policy must be based upon the active co-operation of States and local government.
The report contains these words:
Perhaps our greatest need is getting people studying and working on the problems of urban transportation at the local level.
I have studied only three of these reports. They are voluminous and comprehensive. They are reports of which any country could be proud. They reach the conclusion that the problem, if it is to be tackled successfully, must be tackled at the ground level. Trade unionists, employers, economists and planners must be brought in. It seems not to be realised in this country that housing, schools, roads, rail, water, watersheds, gas and electricity are all part of one problem.
This brings me back to Dr. Beeching. He is proceeding with a policy regardless of the social and economic consequences to the country. He has placed himself in the position of a man who is blindfolded, taken into a cellar, given a pea shooter, and then asked to knock out the one fly which is buzzing around the cellar. He may hit the fly. On the other hand, he may not. He does not know what he is doing. His directive puts him into the position which ought to be occupied by the Minister.
I make no charges whatever against Dr. Beeching. Any critical remarks I make about him are facetious. I do not know him, but I am sure that he would command the respect and support of us all if he was doing the job he has been given to do. If our transport system is to be recast, and if an area as congested as the Midlands is to be divested of a means of travel—if hon. Members think that I exaggerate, I most earnestly ask them to study the American reports—

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend says that he does not know Dr. Beeching. I agree with him. Our letters from him are very disagreeable. Surely my hon. Friend remembers Sir Brian Robertson, who was a general and whom we perhaps criticised. Does not my hon. Friend think that on the whole we got

from Sir Brian Robertson a very great deal of courtesy and thought, some very nice letters, and very thoughtful help? Is not my hon. Friend concerned that in the administration of a national corporation the letters we have had from this gentleman, whom we have not met, are less courteous, less considerate and are certainly nothing like those that we had in the past?

Mr. Speaker: Whatever the hon. Gentleman's concern may be, it is very difficult to bring that matter within the rules of order.

Mr. Wigg: I should be out of order in following that line of thought, but I do not wish to, because I knew General Robertson. I do not know Dr. Beeching, so it would be quite unfair to animadvert or discuss him in any way. I want to be objective.
I certainly would not judge anyone by the letters he writes to me, but rather on the policy he follows. Dr. Beeching is following a policy which ought to have been laid down for him by the Minister, and I say that Dr. Beeching is put into quite a false position because of the impact of a policy that he has to try to follow without regard to political consequences.
I want to return to what has happened in the United States. Hon. Members may think that I am exaggerating when I say that the West Midlands area may find itself without any transport at all, but on page 156 of the Urban Mass Transportation Report, we find Mr. Robert Weaver, administrator of the Housing and House Finance Agency—who was the first witness called in support of the President's Bill—saying:
As many of our people now know from bitter experience we are witnessing the demise of public transportation systems in many of our communities large and small. Between 1945 and 1960 annual ridership on mass transportation systems declined sharply. In some 300 communities mass transportation systems have been completely abandoned.
That means that in 300 communities in the United States the people have neither road nor rail transport.

Mr. Weaver goes on: In countless other places service has been severely curtailed. Hardly a day passes that our Agency does not receive a 'phone call or a letter from some desperate local official asking for help in saving the community's mass


transportation system. The President recognised the gravity of the problem in his 9th March message to Congress. On housing and community development he stated: 'Nothing is more dramatically apparent than the inadequacy of transportation in our larger urban areas. The problem … manifestly cannot be solved by highways alone'.
There is another point—and I will not keep the House much longer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry if hon. Members are worried about sitting late, but I am thinking of the effect on Dudley. Any hon. Member can go out if he wishes. I have followed this Bill through, and I know that since it was set down it has been altered no fewer than seven times. I should have thought that the issues here were of transcendental importance.
I hon. Members opposite were not still smarting from Orpington, they would know that the commuter problem needs to be looked at seriously and objectively. Even so, we might easily find that we are too late. I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite have looked at the reports from which I have been quoting, but I should have thought that any hon. Member who had any regard not only for his constituency but for the country would have been willing to examine the impact of the Government's policy and bring not Dr. Beeching but the Minister, to account.
From that report it is perfectly clear that the United States Government has gone a long way in their examination of this question. They have carried out surveys, none of which kind have been carried out here. We do not even begin to know what the facts are. We have not the foggiest idea about that. We have not the foggiest notion how things will develop. It does not matter twopence where we look—whether at roads, rail, air, canals, docks or anything else—we see a laissez faire policy.
The representative of the Liberal Party has gone, but I think that one of the most excruciatingly funny things that has ever struck me is that the country is turning from the Prime Minister to the Liberal Party—because, of course, the epitome of Liberalism is the Prime Minister. He is the man who believes in laissez faire. He is not a Tory. He walks in the middle of the road.
The Prime Minister is like the Liberal Party, which is so avid for political power regardless of the consequences. This is the policy of laissez-faire. That the country should now turn from the Prime Minister to the Liberal Party is enough to make a cat laugh, because, of course, that party has no solution to our problems. Neither has the Prime Minister.
The solution to the problems of our time lies, as the Americans are finding, in collectivism. Call it what you like; it is a policy in which the public good prevails. As I say, one may call discovering the fact what one likes, but one must have an appreciation of what is happening, a phrase which resembles an Army term. When the plan is made one can then carry it out. The trouble is that we do rather more talking about our plans and do not give enough time to preparing them. That is one of the things that even my party has done, because we have got too close to the party opposite. Whatever one likes to call it—Left-wing or anything else—I call it common sense.
The Americans, with all their knowledge and money—and they have poured in a great deal of cash already and are now talking about expenditure of 800 million dollars in New York alone-have realised the necessity of resuscitating their commuter transport services while we engage in tearing them up. Do we know enough to enable us even to start making plans? Are enormous sums being spent in research, such as is the case in America? Where is the research is Britain? There is none. I urge hon. Members opposite to go through the sort of exercise that 1 have done. I urge them to write to the Minister of Transport—they should not all write at once and so embarrass the right hon. Gentleman—and ask him to tell them of the road building that has been and is going on in their constituencies, or how the great trunk roads are to be affected.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The hon. Member is getting wider and wider in his remarks and I must ask him to relate them to the Bill.

Mr. Wigg: I have an Amendment on the Order Paper which deals with this matter and I am arguing that the Bill


makes no provision at all for the future transport needs of the country. I am trying to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite—1 admit, with some difficulty—of the efficacy of the American project, which is designed to find out the facts. I am recommending to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should ask the Minister of Transport a simple question: what road building is going on in their constituencies and what relation it has to their nearby trunk roads.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite have that information I invite them to relate it to any set of principles, however high-flown or even silly they may consider them to be. They will not be able to discover any real relation between what is going on and what should be happening. I am saying that expenditure on road building is not related to any principles. Do I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I was shaking my head.

Mr. Wigg: Then I invite the hon. Gentleman to come to Dudley and debate this before my constituents and I will come to his constituency and do likewise. Let the hon. Gentleman try to tell his constituents, and mine, about the principles upon which he and his right hon. Friend work. Of course, there is none.
Even the Americans, with their vast financial resources, are brought face to face with the logic of the situation, because the costs are so gigantic. Whereas British transport is the Cinderella when it comes to investment—with the Minister of Transport always fighting a losing battle with the Treasury—the Americans are getting the facts. That is why the present Minister of Transport is always put in his place. Politically, of course, he is of no account at all. He is rather by way of being a joke. He might do rather a good job as a sort of public relations officer—opening bridges and that sort of thing—but, because of the astuteness of the Prime Minister, that is all that he can do. When it comes to a fight between the Minister of Transport and the Treasury, the Minister is not even a starter.
I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will welcome the step taken by Dudley in trying to get a survey of the transport needs of the West Midlands, particularly since it is now clear that Birmingham supports Dudley in that policy. If such a survey is undertaken with his approval, I should like to know whether he will give it financial backing. If that one is too hot for him. perhaps he will consult his right hon. Friend to see whether, as an act of policy, transport surveys, both rail and road, of immediate and developing needs will be supported by the Government. I should have thought that an essential first step was to try to find out what is the existing situation. I should have thought that that was mere child's play and that I was pushing at an open door in making this plea.
If Dudley, in association with Birmingham, is publicly spirited enough to do this—and presumably if those two authorities do it, others will join them—it would be the height of folly to go ahead in tearing up the Stourbridge-Wolverhampton line and other lines which are queueing up for the chopper. If the commuter services are to be torn up—

Mr. Hay: For the second time the hon. Gentleman has said that the intention is to tear up this line. Obviously he has not studied with his usual assiduity the correspondence which he has had with the Chairman of the Commission. I have seen this correspondence and the Chairman says that what is proposed is the withdrawal of the passenger service, not the tearing up of the line.

Mr. Wigg: By this time I do not believe anything which the Transport Commission says. I say that in no disrespect. I just do not believe that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. When the Commission says in capital letters that it does not propose to suspend the freight service, that convinces me that that is wrong. I do not believe that this organisation is wicked. I do not think that they are Machiavellian or that this is a piece of chicanery on the part of Dr. Beeching. This is pure administrative stupidity. They just do not know what they are up to. When I ask whether Dudley station is to be closed, I am told


that one line is under review, then I find out that there is another one, and then by a side wind I find that there is a third. I therefore hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I take the part in capital letters at least with a grain of salt.
The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the lines are not to be torn up and that only the passenger services are to be suspended, but the bus services are being curtailed. The Minister of Housing and Local Government proposes that another 350,000 people should go to the area. If Dudley and Birmingham undertake a survey to find out the facts, now and as they may develop, surely I am not unreasonable in asking the Minister to delay the suspension of the passenger services until such time as the needs are established. I should have thought that that was eminently reasonable and that if the hon. Gentleman

thought about the political future of his own party he would grab at this suggestion with both hands because what is in revolt is the people who use these commuter services. They are fed up with being asked to pay higher fares while services are being curtailed and with being asked to travel under intensely disagreeable conditions in trains which are dirty and late. They are fed up with being asked to pay more and more for a worse and worse service.
I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would serve the interests of his own party as well as the interests of the nation if he accepted with gratitude the step taken by both parties, Labour and Conservative, in Dudley and use it as a basis for future policy. If he will not do that, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall will.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), because I hope later to have a good deal to say about his constituency and I am glad to know that I have his support in what I intend to say. I, too, in my constituency have a commuter problem much the same as the hon. Member has mentioned and I have every sympathy with what he has said.
I wish, however, to direct my attention primarily to the inland waterway closures that are projected in the Bill. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that Magna Charta states quite clearly that
In the future all kydells "—
I will tell hon. Members presently what "kydells" are in case they have temporarily forgotten—
shall be removed from the Thames and Med-way and throughout all England ".
In the subsequent issue of the Charta in 1350, this passage was further extended to say:
Whereas the common passage of boats and ships in the great rivers of England be oft times annoyed …

Mr. Hale: Will the hon. Member tell us what are the present express trains from Runnymede and whether this declaration was made before modern transport was invented?

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I said, however, that I was directing my attention to waterways. The point I am seeking to make is that there is an express injunction in our earlier Statutes that the great rivers of England shall be kept open and free for navigation. It is to this point that I wish to revert later. I merely remind hon. Members of it at the outset.
Of the closures mentioned in the Bill, of which there are a considerable number, I have no objection to most of them because they are in accordance with the recommendations of the Parham Committee on Inland Waterway Redevelopment. There are, however, four closures which are the subject of the Instruction standing in the name of myself and those of two of my hon. Friends. The four closures to which 1 object are quite different.
The wording of the Parham Report on these closures, and in particular on the Dudley Canal in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dudley, is open to doubt in interpretation. On the other three, however, there is a quite definite recommendation by the Parham Committee that they should stay open to navigation. I am aware of the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on 5th December last year at columns 157 and 158 to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), but I consider the Answers given to my hon. Friend's Questions far from satisfactory.
During the past weekend, I have made an extensive examination with my young son of two of the inland waterways which are mentioned in this proposed closure. Both my son and I are not without experience of inland waterway matters. I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that I have somewhat changed my mind about the proposed closure of the Dudley Canal. Last week, until I had refreshed my memory, I took a certain view, I now take the view, having seen the canal as recently as the day before yesterday, that it should definitely stay open.
The position of the Dudley Canal concerning the recommendation of the Parham Committee was that it should be left open until such time as the British Transport Commission definitely required to rebuild the railway bridge at the north entrance of the canal. Do not let us make any mistake about this. There are railway bridges at both ends of the canal and we are speaking this year about the one at the north end.
We are told by the British Transport Commission that the time has now come when it must deal with this bridge; the bridge must be rebuilt. I am told that the Transport Commission takes the view that, if an embankment was built and the canal was blocked up, the job would cost about £8,000 less than if there was a span bridge put in its place. However, having seen the work myself, I am of opinion that there would be a vast amount of solid material required to form the embankment.
I question the figures quoted by the British Transport Commission. First, is it really true that a span would be all that more expensive than a solid embankment? I very much doubt it. Second, the likelihood of the railway being closed in the not too distant future looms over us. The hon. Member for Dudley referred several times to the risk of closure of various railway lines for passenger traffic in his constituency. I fear that, if this particular line is to be closed to traffic in the near future, there will be a vast waste of public money if the bridge is rebuilt.
I hope that the Committee on the Bill will direct its attention to ascertaining the truth of the matter. Will this railway line remain open for some time? Secondly, what is the technical assessment of the costs likely to be incurred in building either a span bridge or, alternatively, putting in the vast quantity of solids necessary to make a firm embankment and close up the canal for all time?
I have received a letter from an experienced canal enthusiast in the Midlands who knows this area well. I shall not weary the House by reading all the letter, but I must draw attention to part of it. He says:
Last year British Waterways proposed abandoning the Dudley Tunnel because of the danger of a viaduct at the south end. When that failed, having done nothing about the viaduct, they have now put the blame on the north end where there is another, much smaller, viaduct. This viaduct could be rebuilt in any way they like without interfering with the canal provided about £1,500 is spent on extending the tunnel 30 ft. If the bridge girders are replaced the whole job would be cheaper and no extension would be required for the tunnel. If the proposed embankment is built, a narrow extension of the tunnel would be necessary, even if the canal is aban-boned, to pass drainage from Dudley Borough. A large part of that £1,500 would thus be spent in any case if the embankment is built".
I hope that the Committee will give very close attention to the true financial facts of the proposed alternative methods of rebuilding the railway bridge.
Moreover, I think that it would be tragic for several other reasons to lose the navigation rights on the Dudley Canal. It provides an alternative crosslink to the Netherton Canal. At a period when we hope that the entire canal system of this country will be revitalised

and go from strength to strength, it would be extremely silly to lose a cross-link, particularly having in mind that it might be necessary at some date to have a temporary closure of the Netherton Canal for repairs or other purposes.
I realise that the Dudley Canal and tunnel has not been used commercially since 1951, but that does not mean that it might not be so used in the future. As recently as 20th March, I heard that there is a good possibility of 20 tons of coal a week being brought from the Brownhill coalfield to Stourbridge. If this weekly consignment of coal were routed via the Dudley route, the journey would be about four miles shorter. Incidentally, it is worth mentioning that the prospective carrier has been kept waiting over three weeks for a told quotation from the B.T.C.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is not that normal?

Mr. Wells: Quite normal. No doubt, the authority is waiting to see the outcome of this debate before giving a quotation. I hope that the Committee on the Bill will take serious note of the commercial potential of this waterway. Furthermore, I have been told that it was written into the Act which authorised the construction of the Netherton Canal that the existence of that canal would not jeopardise the prosperity of the Dudley Canal. That is precisely what has happened.
Yet another factor from the canal point of view arises from the features of great geological interest which are called the Caverns, which are within the tunnel. These are ancient limestone workings. If the canals and the tunnel are closed to navigation, the only access which will be left to interested persons will be through Dudley Zoo. While I pay tribute to the very helpful attitude of the Dudley Zoo authorities, as I am sure does the hon. Member for Dudley, in allowing interested persons to get in through their private property to see these extremely interesting workings, it is clearily not a satisfactory arrangement to extinguish by Act of Parliament the public right of access to this public property and to substitute the necessity to go through private property.
In passing, I remind the House that the Dudley Canal Basin has been declared to be a site of special scientific importance under Section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. The importance of this basin lies, I am told, in the geological exposures, and the Act of 1949 requires nothing to be done with such a site without the agreement of the Nature Conservancy. Yet the Minister of Transport is apparently allowing the B.T.C. to close the public's only public access to these very interesting workings. I hope that the Committee on the Bill will take note of all these points.
I do not know what consultations the B.T.C. had, before it brought forward this Measure, with the interested parties on the matter of land drainage. I mentioned in the letter from which I quoted that there will need to be drainage from the Borough of Dudley via the tunnel and through the canal. This is an important matter. The B.T.C. does not have a good record in dealing with neighbours and others on land drainage. What consultations has the B.T.C. had with local councils and other neighbouring councils? What about the position of British Federal Welders? The Parliamentary Secretary may express surprise at that question, but this company has a large factory which straddles the tunnel. What arrangements has the B.T.C. made to consult and meet the requirements of these various important private interests?
Has the B.T.C. considered the effect of the closure on all these interests? I hope that the Committee on the Bill will probe all these points. I do not apologise to the House for raising them, although they may be thought to be Committee points. I have a very good reason for doing so. It is that there are no Petitioners against the Bill from this point of view and that this is the only method by which the Committee's attention can be drawn to this multitude of important points. It may be said that the canal enthusiasts should have petitioned against the Bill, but this is hardly practicable, for although the canal enthusiasts are numerous—we all receive constituency letters from them—they are not rich, and the funds which they have are used generally for voluntary work

on canals, where the B.T.C. allows it, and for buying boats, for example. They do not care to use their funds to hire lawyers.
Hon. Members may ask who are these canal enthusiasts who are using this canal. When I was at Dudley last weekend I heard about a 70-ft. narrow boat being taken through the tunnel at the end of last year. This was perhaps one of the largest craft that have been through in recent years. I heard of pot-holers who go to examine the caverns practically every weekend. Every Saturday and Sunday during the summer a dozen or more arrive by canoe. There is no other convenient method of entry to these workings, apart from going through the tunnel or Dudley Zoo.
In addition to this problem of these young people who examine the workings and enjoy themselves in perfectly healthy recreation, there are other possibilities for the future use of this important waterway. The local newspaper, the County Express, has carried an article about it recently and has detailed many of the other potential serious users of this waterway. I would remind the House that at the other end of the canal there is an extremely interesting flight of locks, called the Park Head locks, which are in good order. It is not as though this was one of those waterways which British Waterways have neglected. Indeed, I shall deal with some of those in a few minutes' time.
The fact remains that the locks on this canal are in good order. There is a good basin at the south end, and the Dudley Corporation owns the property which is adjacent. The Corporation might well at some time wish to develop it for amenity purposes, and it would be tragic if this interesting possibility as a recreational centre were lost. Finally, on the issue of the Dudley Canal, undoubtedly in the minds of some members of the Parham Committee the canal was not to be closed until that Committee—I repeat, until the Parham Committee—had the opportunity of reconsidering the matter.
I should like to turn briefly to the question of the Chesterfield Canal, which is mentioned at the bottom of page 24 of the Bill.
The Parham Committee clearly recommended that part of it should be left


open for pleasure traffic, though it admitted freely that part should be closed. I deplore the fact that the British Transport Commission, in bringing forward this Bill, has considered the Chesterfield Canal as a whole instead of dividing it in two as the Parham Committee did. Great sums of money have been spent in past months—the first time for many years—on new works, locks and bridging. Much navigational equipment has been provided. If the statutory navigation of the Chesterfield Canal is to be closed for all time, this money will have been lost.
The local boat club has bought a number of new boats. It is an extremely active club which provides funds for the waterway, and it has offered its voluntary services towards helping the British Transport Commission to maintain the canal. But its services have been refused. This is a deplorable state of affairs. If this waterway is to be closed to navigation I should like to know how much public money will have been wasted in the last twelve months. I think that the Committee considering the Bill might well direct its attention to that point.
The 25 miles of the navigable section of this canal, oddly enough, have cost a great deal less to maintain than the derelict section, for this reason. The navigable section has only about fifteen locks contrasted with fifty locks and a three-mile tunnel on the derelict section.
I have had very comprehensive notes from the local boat club, as have other hon. Members. I will not weary the House by reading them all out in full now, but, in order that the Minister shall be in no mistake about this, I will send him a copy of these notes, and I hope that be will be kind enough to forward them to the members of the Committee on the Bill, so that they may see the true state of this canal and not merely be taken in by the Commission's point of view. I do not accept the breakdown of figures on the expenses of this canal as provided by the Commission.
We have had the recommendations of the Parham Committee, an eminent and able body which has worked hard. It is quite absurd to have a Committee of this sort and then to flout its recommendations. I am not the only hon. Member who has given close attention to

this canal. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), has given long hours to it. My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) and Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) both know this waterway well, and I believe that they are fond of it and would deplore its closure for ever.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to my interest in this. This canal has been the subject of many letters to me. Today, I was in touch with certain people about it. Many people are not only interested in the canal but in the reservoirs, which my hon. Friend has not mentioned. I hope that they will also be taken into consideration.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I want to get on and I shall not discuss the reservoirs tonight. The Chesterfield Canal should have our very closest attention.
The second canal concerned in this Bill and which I visited last weekend, is the old Stratford cut of the Grand Union Canal. Much of this waterway is dry for parts of the year, but I have had considerable discussion with local people, some of them owners of property adjoining the canal and some of them small boys who are enjoying it as a waterway, at least on Sundays, even though the Commission is seeking to close it to statutory navigation.
In dealing with canals, I believe in listening to the advice of those who use them daily, and these small boys tell me that even in summer this waterway does not dry up entirely. Although I am the first to admit that the waterway is in bad order, I believe that it would be foolish to close it to statutory navigation now. The new Inland Waterway Authority, or whatever it is ultimately to be called—[Interruption.]—Hon. Members who are not aware of the situation will have forgotten that the Minister gave an assurance elsewhere that it would be called something other than "Inland Waterway Authority."
As I was saying, under Clause 63 of the Transport Bill, the new authority will have an absolute protection, as from 1st January next, from anybody seeking to bring an action against it for failure


to maintain a navigation. They will have this blanket protection for five years.
If nobody has brought an action against the Commission for the last ten years, why on earth should anyone seek to do it in the miserable six months that are left? Obviously, no man can bind his neighbour, but I think that I could give a firm assurance to the House that no member of any reputable canal club, no member of the Inland Waterways Association or of the Inland Waterways Preservation Association, and no responsible canal enthusiast who is a member of a club would dream of bringing an action against the Commission in the six months left if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could go some way to giving us an assurance that the canal will be left open.
I believe that the geographical situation of the canal has great potential as a location for hire-boat business. Hon. Members who visited the Aylesbury rally last year—and a number of hon. Members did—will remember the enormous change that has come to the Aylesbury arm of the Grand Union Canal, not a long distance from the short arm of canal which we are discussing, directly as a result of the action of one small private company and the enthusiastic work of a number of amateur boat operators. If the navigation of the old Stratford cut could be left open a little longer we might see it developed to great advantage in the future.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I appreciate the vast amount of thought which the hon. Member has put into his speech. Could he tell me the length of this canal? I do not know the locus. In what condition is the flora and fauna from the point of view of angling interests? I know that if the canal were in Scotland there would be many representations from angling interests.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I see the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) in his place. No doubt he will tell us something later about angling. The canal is only about 1¼ miles long. The state of the flora is deplorable in that trees hang over the canal and it is clogged up with

weeds. The various young gentlemen whom 1 met over the weekend assure me that the fishing is good at times. [Laughter.]

Mr. Wigg: As the House seems to find something funny in all this, would hon. Members help me by laughing at this point? At a time when we are treating our canals as a joke and a matter for hilarity, our competitors in the Common Market are building canals to lower their costs. I hope that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) will go to his constituency and explain to the unemployed there that what some of us regard seriously he regards as a late-night joke.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Nonsense.

Mr. Wells: This section of the canal is by no means a joke, and the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dudley is an important commercial waterway, as I have said. The old Stratford cut with which I am dealing has great possibilities as a centre for pleasure boating.
It may be said by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Parham Committee was vague in its recommendations on this section. That is absolutely true. It recommended a policy of "wait and see" because some day the canal might be suitable for pleasure boating. The canal passes through an extremely attractive stretch of country. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) asked about the flora and fauna. The canal passes through the park of Cos-grove Hall, one of the most beautiful small estates in that part of England. It passes very close to an extremely interesting Roman villa, and any canal enthusiast who wanted to could spend a very enjoyable twenty-four hours there.
I am not suggesting that a nationalised industry has, as part of its public duty, to provide public amenities. My hon. Friend is the Parliamentary Secretary—

Mr. Hale: Mr. Hale rose—

Mr. Wells: I will give way in a minute. I was about to say that my hon. Friend is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pleasure and Pastime.

Mr. Hale: I am speaking on behalf of several hundred thousand people who travel from Manchester every night in conditions which are deplorable, in carriages in which they are almost crushed to death, and in a proximity to others which is almost indecent. These facetious remarks about boating on a canal in Buckinghamshire make me want to spew, and I tell the hon. Gentleman so.

Mr. Wells: I think that the hon. Gentleman has entirely failed to miss the point. [Laughter.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to go and spew, he can do so, but the—

Mr. Hale: Mr. Hale rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hale: Sir—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hale: I do not care what you say or do. I want you to listen to this comment. [Interruption.] If you wish to suspend me you can do so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will resume his seat.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Hale: I say on behalf of my constituents that they do not have to put up with these conditions.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Hon. Members: Order. Sit down.

Mr. Wells: I was seeking to make the point that there are many people who believe that when the new Inland Waterways Authority takes over the canals from the British Transport Commission they will be on a much better footing because the serious transport matters of the Class A canals will be attended to in their due course. But the pleasures of many other members of the public—perfectly legitimate sports such as fishing—will also be duly attended to.
As I was saying some time ago, and I am glad to get back to my theme of this old Stratford cut, I have only two doubts. The first is about the water supply, and the second is about the strength of the embankment in the

middle section where it is built up and is standing free, and not built into the hillside.
In the past the water supply came from a sluice on the Ouse in the neighbourhood of Buckingham. This has not been available for many years, and although boats were built for export at Stony Stratford as late as 1923 and coal was taken into that small town in the 'thirties, the supply of water to the canal has either come in the form of rain or as a backwash from the main inflow of the Grand Union Canal.
That is not a satisfactory situation, and it is for this reason that I mentioned at the outset of my speech that passage from the Magna Charta, because the water taken from the Ouse at Buckingham to make this canal navigable when it was first constructed represents a deliberate step over a hundred years ago to make the Ouse in that section not navigable. Therefore, if, from the year 1350 onwards, there was an obligation on the Government and on the public to keep the great rivers of England open, and the Ouse was deliberately stopped up in order to provide water for this canal, surely it is the successor, as it were, to the right of navigation which was conferred by Magna Charta on the public of this country. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to look very closely at any recommended closure of the canal and the far-reaching constitutional implications that might spring from it.
I am told, on good local authority, that alternative supplies of water are available. There is a brook that passes under the canal. I believe that it is called the Dog's Mouth Spring, and apparently it never dries up. If we wanted to provide a new source of water for the canal it would make a perfectly good one. Not only is this canal situated in beautiful countryside but, for those hon. Members who would like to see a boating station established there, I would remind the House that the stretch at Stony Stratford straddles the A.5 road, and is only a short distance from the M.1. It is therefore handy for all the people of the Midlands and the London area. It is in an almost ideal position. It would be a great tragedy if it were closed. I therefore urge hon. Members to oppose any attempt to close it.
The last canal with which I wish to deal is the Erewash Canal. For the


benefit of hon. Members who may not recall it, it is mentioned in line 20, on page 25 of the Bill. The canal suffers from a degree of mining subsidence, but there is no value in a rushed closure, any more than there is value in a rushed closure of the other units with which I have dealt. The Parham Committee did not recommend closure of this canal. As in the case of the old Stratford cut, it recommended a policy of "wait and see".
The Erewash Canal has plenty of water. It is only about five miles in length, and if there is any further mining subsidence between the passing of the Bill and the vesting date of the Transport Bill, which I have already mentioned, it can hardly affect the works policy of the Commission. The Commission is very slow in getting going. If there should be any further subsidence between June or July of this year and January of next year I do not think that the Commission would alter its works policy at all. Therefore, I view this proposed closure as a storm in a teacup. I understand that no money has had to be spent on the canal as a result of mining subsidence since 1958, and that the grand total of expenditure on the canal between 1951 and 1958 was only just over £800. Surely this canal could be left for a further six months, for the new Authority.
The Commission pays lip service to leaving matters untouched for the new Authority when it is set up, but, in contrast with this, when closures are mentioned it is all too anxious to press on. I believe that the new Inland Waterways Authority may well have different views from those of the Commission about the four waterways I have mentioned. There is no virtue in closing them precipitately, unless it is done with the object of saving money—and I have sought to indicate that the prospective saving from the closing of these four waterways would be very small.
I trust that the Committee on the Bill will look at the prospective saving very closely, and see whether it is possible to remove these four sections from the provisions of the Bill, leaving them for the new Authority to deal with, and to do the best it can for canal enthusiasts of all sorts. If in a few years' time the new Authority seeks to close these units on

grounds which have been properly argued, unlike these rushed measures with which the House is presented today, I shall have no objection, but at present I hope that the House will in due course support my Instruction to the Committee, unless of course the Minister can give real assurance to the people who are using these canals or will use them in future, and the many supporters of the canals movement of the country.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I rise to support the plea made by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) in his effort to get the Minister to postpone the action contemplated by this Bill.
I know that the Minister will tell us that he is not closing the canals but handing them over to the responsibility of the new Authority. I hope that by the time the new Authority gets to work the canals will be in no worse a condition than they are today. I am not going into the question of the strategic use that can be made of canals, their economic use, or whether they should be used for the carrying of ore or grain. I am not going to deal with them as a commercial proposition, but as a social and psychological proposition.
In this country there are many ordinary, decent working folk. I have often spoken about the "bad eggs" among them, those extremists who seek to create trouble in industry. The House can take it from me that every weekend 4½ million decent, quiet, peace-loving fellows use the canals—those which are left fit to fish in—for angling purposes. I challenge any employer to go among his working people in the angling section of the local sporting club, seek out those who comprise that section and tell me that they are not among the best employees he has. These are the people who "seek peace and ensue it." They want to sit by the river bank and do harm to no one. Every club and every pub has an angling section whose members are, more and more, seeking peace and quietness apart from the sad condition of the world. I shall not go into the cause of the condition of the country brought about by the rule of the Tory Party. That can be left until after we have had the Budget next week. Then we can get down to discussing economic matters, but now I plead with


the Minister to consider this serious social matter.
Among other things, I happen to be President of the County Palatine Association. That is one of the finest associations in the country with one of the finest angling sections in the world. We have tens of thousands of members. People have asked me: "What are anglers prepared to do about the canals?" Recently we have spent £1,000 per mile to have certain sections of the Macclesfield Canal dredged, cleaned and put right. When the official in London was told this he nearly fell from his chair. I quote these figures to prove the desire of these people to keep the canals available for their pleasure. It is said in the Bill that the Weaver navigation is to be left alone. If it were closed to angling there would be a mutiny. The chap who closed it would be brought to the Bar for incitement to rebellion. Seriously, I ask the Minister to look not so much at the economics of this matter. I know that the canals are in a desperate condition, but that is not the fault of the fellows who use them or of the boating clubs.
Take the case of the Chesterfield Canal. It is 45 miles and 82 yards long. What is the promised use of it today? There is no great commercial use for it but there are thousands of houseboats, small yachts and barges on it in which men with their wives and children can spend a peaceful weekend cruising along and looking at the countryside. Debar them from that canal and where would they go? They would go on to the already congested roads. Debar people from use of that canal and the impression will be created in their minds that the party responsible does it for restriction and the idea that a man should not be allowed to fish. There are now very few rivers open to the public. Because of pollution, because of the rights of riparian owners, and because of all the other factors operating against the ordinary, decent lower-paid worker, the amount of water available for fishing becomes less every week.
I do not hold this against the landowners. I have poached in their waters and enjoyed it. It is all very well for wealthy landowners not to take any interest in this. What would happen if it were suddenly announced that Old

Trafford and Wembley were to be closed? Yet only a fragment of the population watch football matches as compared with the millions who go fishing. I hope that the Minister will look again at this question.
The question has been asked whether the country should be expected to keep these places fit for anglers. Why not? I say that it is a social service. This is a social service which can be paid for by a slight increase in taxation. Workmen are more contented and turn out better work because of their fishing. The advantage of having a band of workmen return on a Monday morning contented and relaxed after a weekend's quiet and peace cannot be computed in terms of money.
I have already complained in the House about the closure of canals. I presented a Petition with many signatures about two years ago. I know the difficulties. I know the economic and strategic arguments. However, there is the social and psychological side. The Minister may not be efficient. I do not know whether he is or is not. If he is a Minister for very long he will know what I mean because he will become, as I did, so distressed with the work inside his Ministry that he will want to get into the countryside and fish at the weekends. There is no finer feeling than to want to forget this House. I say that as one who fishes as often as he can. People often tell me that I look very well and fit and always have a smile on my face. There is a good reason for this. Weekends in the countryside, especially angling weekends, produce contentment and relaxation. Both the Labour Party and the Tory Party spend too much of their time at the weekends devising the destruction of various things.
I know something about the closing of stations and the perturbation felt by thousands of workpeople who are now not able to catch the trains they took formerly. Industry is becoming very concerned about the resulting loss of time, because buses are not running to time. If a train was late due to fog, allowances could be made. However, I do not want to go into too much detail on this aspect.
I want to make my appeal on behalf of millions of decent-minded, Christian fellows, that these canals, so far as is


humanly possible, should not only be kept fit for navigation but also kept fit for men to fish in so that decent people should have that peace of mind which all decent. God-fearing men are entitled to have.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have enjoyed the joking and laughing which has taken place during the debate as well as anyone, but my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) became very indignant about the justifiable grievances of many of his constituents because of the conditions in which they have to travel between Manchester and Oldham to obtain their livelihood. I want to produce some evidence to show the correctness of what my hon. Friend said. I want also to associate myself wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said. He lives in Trent. I know him very well. He, his wife and his daughters live in my constituency. They are a highly respected family. I was largely responsible for preventing him being made a general. I have now let the secret out for the first time, but my hon. Friend knows that it is so. Instead of becoming a general, he has held his place in the House and he is making his contribution in accordance with his experience.
I want to speak for people similar to those for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham. West has spoken in his interventions. I am sorry that he has left the Chamber. I know he has a contribution to make, and I hope that someone will persuade him to return and make it.
I speak as a friend of the British Transport Commission, and I want it to be a success. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has produced evidence from the most capitalistic country in the world—America. America has great resources, and can do things on a very large scale based on research and development and scientific planning within the limits of the system there—always allowing for the many conflicts that arise in her approach to her problems. That evidence shows that in America, too, transport has its problems.
I believe that if the British Transport Commission were allowed to carry out Che policy which my party in its best Socialist days desired it could make a success of our transport, and that is why some of us are opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. During the last ten years, the Commission has been subjected to a good deal of Government interference behind the scenes. The Parliamentary Secretary indicates denial of that statement, but I know that it is true. If it has not come to his notice it only shows how wrong things can be.
I have never before said a word of this in public—I do not believe in breaking confidences—but as we are speaking frankly tonight it would be wrong of me not to voice the grievances that some members of the Commission, no longer with it, have felt. The Commission inherited a terrible legacy of neglect by past generations, and it has suffered from the effects of two world wars. I say all this in order to get matters in their correct perspective.
I speak tonight with the backing of the managements of some of our largest industrial establishments, which have provided me with maps, drawings and statistics with which, if necessary, to prove my case. I also speak for the organised trade union movement; the North-West Trades Council had a very condemnatory debate in the Manchester Town Hall only a fortnight ago. It is because of these grievances that are reflecting themselves in the controversy that is taking place in all sections of the Press that I speak as I do now.
For a change, we are hearing about part of England, and not about Wales or Scotland. I make all allowances for Welsh and Scottish nationalism, which reflects itself in our proceedings, and I make all allowances for constitutional and national problems, and so on, but it is sometimes overdone. Tonight, I have statistics with which we can approach the problem in its correct perspective.
In the County of Lancashire there live 5,101,000 people, while the population of Cheshire is 1,307,000, making a total for the two counties of 6,408,000. Within a 60 mile radius of where I live there dwell 14,039,730 people and it is, therefore, time that we voiced their transport problems so that justice is done to these toiling millions, thousands of whom are


at this moment going on night shift and will not be returning home until tomorrow morning.
Within a 15-mile radius of Manchester, for example, there live 2,695,000 people. Within a similar radius of most cities there is not the same concentration of people. I could quote figures to prove this, but I will not weary the house. More people use the railways in Manchester than in any other city in Britain with the exception of London. More people travel to and from their employment through Manchester than any other city. More than twice the number travel through Manchester daily to obtain their livelihood than travel through Glasgow. It is also said that more people travel into and through Manchester daily than any other city in Britain.
These figures indicate the seriousness of our modern transport problems. I can, therefore, understand the indignation felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, who I am glad to see in his place so that he will be able to express his views in support of what I am saying.
We all know that Britain cannot survive without exports. It is essential that we should at least maintain the present level of exports and, if possible, increase it. Thus, inside industry, we ask for the maximum efficiency and increases in output. In this connection it is worth remembering that in the relatively short time that I have been an hon. Member the B.T.C.—or similar organisations that existed prior to it—has put through twenty-four Bills of this kind. That is simply tinkering with the problem.
There can be no wonder why I and some of my hon. Friends, coming as we do from an industrial area, desire to put the facts on record so that they may be considered by the Minister. After all, if we must do our best within in-industry, we must also do our best outside it to help the workpeople. For many years I stood beside these people. I am one of them yet. Unlike many people, my family live in the same house. We wear the same kind of clothes and we speak the same language. In fact, that is all we desire of life—to remain where our roots are—and it is in that vein that I am now speaking.
These millions of people must often stand in the rain when no bus shelters exist. Thus they arrive at work wet. Their clothes are wet through and this has a terrible psychological effect on them, for they must be at their work in this wet condition, attempting to dry themselves. Obviously this sort of thing must affect production costs as well as output. In the winter, this is more serious still, especially where we live, where the people suffer from bronchitis more than in any other part of the world, never mind our own country. They stand in pouring rain, in snow and in fog.
During the war, we used rightly to talk about absenteeism, but relatively we have no regard to it now. Yet everyone who is away from work for one hour has an effect upon the country's economy. Nevertheless, we allow thousands of people to suffer unnecessarily, to suffer through illnesses or getting colds, because there is not enough transport and not enough bus shelters, with the result that people get wet unnecessarily and all that that means. Consequently, the proportion of our population which suffers from bronchitis and asthma is greater than in any other country or in any other part of our own country.
All this leads to congestion and to more accidents, thus creating a chaotic situation that should not exist in a great industrial country in 1962. We hear a great deal about industrial productivity and higher efficiency. It is time that the Ministry paid more attention to this outside industry, so that those who serve so well in industry can have similar efficiency as soon as they get outside the works.
This requires more and better passenger transport facilities, so that less time is spent in travelling to and from work. This would help to reduce fatigue. All this counts when we consider the aggregate effect. Therefore, conditions call for what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has demanded. Public opinion demands it, and it is time that this House reflected that public opinion so that the Ministry will be influenced to adopt a different policy from its present one.
I stand on good ground, because for over thirty years I advocated the electrification of the railways and the introduction of dieselisation. My reason for doing so was that I was employed in working on diesel electrics and on electrification all over the world, but not for our own country. At last, it is a real treat to see that it is going on between Manchester and Crewe. Efficiency is stamped there. If only we had the same kind of efficiency beginning to show itself on the whole transport system of the country, we should be more optimistic about our future. This is a great success to nationalisation. I have no hesitation in saying that if those who believed in nationalisation and were determined to make it a success were running the country in the way that it should be run, the future of the country would be much better.
From this modern policy of dieselisation and electrification, revenue is already going up. It is a treat to talk to the men in the booking offices. The men serving the railways are much cleaner and they take a greater pride in their work. This is an indication of what could be done. Because of ideas like this, I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley took advantage of the Second Reading of the Bill to suggest that they should be introduced.
My hon. Friend suggested that the first essential was to carry out a survey. I understood him to say that this was what was being done in New York. I ask that the same thing should be done here.

Mr. Wigg: I quoted from a report on commuters' transportation which covered New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, but in the United States these surveys are highly sophisticated and detailed and they are going on in every great city in the country. In this country, we have nothing at all or only the most amateurish sort of thing.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Parliamentary Secretary has heard the constructive suggestions which have been made. We are not antagonistic towards the British Transport Commission. We want it to be a success, and that is why we are making

these suggestions. I shall provide further evidence to show the need for surveys to be made. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to undertake that he will consult his right hon. Friend the Minister on the suggestions made in the debate tonight and assure us that a statement will soon be made about them either to the House or outside.
There is an unanswerable case for a survey in all the big industrial centres. I am speaking for our greatest industrial area, not the part I represent in the House but the part I represent outside in many other ways. As soon as possible, there should be a survey in the greater Manchester area, where 7 million people live, or, to take a radius of 40 miles from Manchester, where 14 million people live, so that we can introduce greater efficiency and better organisation in public transport.
I come now to Trafford Park itself. I was privileged as a boy to be employed in an American firm there which finished up by being one of the most efficient concerns in the world and made a great contribution to the development of our economy. Twenty thousand people are employed there now. In Trafford Park, 60,000 people are employed. Many people travel, for example, from Oldham to Victoria each day. They then have to change and walk to the bus, perhaps getting wet through in rain or snow or foggy weather. Then they have to walk from the bus to the Park, with another ten minutes' walk inside the works.
There are 233 firms in the Park. At peak times, 287 buses leave the Park. Between 4 and 5 p.m. by the Trafford Park road only there leave 168 buses, 438 commercial vehicles, 526 private cars and 256 cycles. In the same period by the Mosley Road in Trafford Park there leave 76 buses, 350 commercial vehicles, 1,521 private cars and 2,035 cycles. Often at peak times it takes between half an hour and an hour to coyer 1£ miles. Also, of course, people leaving for home have to cross the Manchester Ship Canal bridges. Thousands of men and women leave home at 6.30 or 7 o'clock each morning and do not return home until 6 o'clock at night. They may work on piecework during the day at the tempo of effort that that entails. Yet they are subject to dreadful travelling conditions.

Mr. Wigg: And getting worse all the time.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have copies of letters sent to the Manchester Press dealing with these problems. I shall not read them all out, although I should like extracts from them to be recorded in HANSARD. I shall not detain the House by reading these quotations, although I ought to do so; several letters have appeared in the Press which confirm what I have said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has rendered a great service to the House, and I am pleased that hon. Members who have been present have been tolerant and have listened with such interest. They, too, can think over what has been said. We are all pooling our ideas and experience with a view to reaching correct conclusions which the Minister can consider. We have made constructive proposals. My hon. Friends and I have been critical but we have also been constructive. Indeed, one is not entitled to be critical unless one has some constructive ideas with which to back the criticism. We have endeavoured to be constructive. I hope that, having put this on record, we shall see that it will result in action being taken by the Minister so that we can improve the transport facilities in the large industrial areas in our towns and cities.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. William Clark: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) in what he said about the four canals. I think that the House agrees that my hon. Friend's speech was not only interesting but extremely well-thought-out and logically argued.
One of the canals to which he referred, the Chesterfield Canal, affects my constituency. I do not want to repeat the arguments which my hon. Friend used, but I should like to point out to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the weakness of the B.T.C.'s case is that it wants to close the four canals which the Parham Committee said should not be closed. What has happened since last November, when the Parham Committee reported, to cause somebody to change his mind about the four canals? The Chesterfield Canal, which affects my constituency, is perfectly

navigable, and it is a popular place for people who like to use canals, whether for fishing or for boating. Presumably it costs money to set up these Committees. The Parham Committee was set up and it made this recommendation. Why should the B.T.C. change its mind two or three months later and bring forward the Bill?
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone brought this point out. As there are no Petitioners against the Bill on this point, this is the only way in which Members of the Committee on the Bill can be instructed by the House. I hope that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about these four canals and will give us an assurance that they will not be closed.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I shall refer in particular to the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) and the longer remarks of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells). I want to speak about one of the canals which runs through my constituency. I think that I have a greater knowledge, and more first-hand knowledge, of it than has the hon. Member for Maidstone.
In passing, I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) on the much wider issues which they raised, but I do not want to deal with them; they have been dealt with adequately. Everyone sympathises about the problems of the large urban areas, but I am not sure that they can be dealt with by this Bill. The question of canals can be dealt with by it. Indeed, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South and the hon. Member for Maidstone have asked the Minister not to close these canals.
I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) and the hon. Member for Maidstone are on the same lines.

Mr. Jack Jones: Parallel lines.

Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham spoke for a much wider and more democratic body of people—those who fish in these canals


—than did the hon. Member for Maidstone. Many of the people of whom he spoke are purely week-end visitors boating on the canals. Why should we keep the canals open for their purposes? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Maidstone speaks for the Inland Waterways Association, but listening to his speech I suspected that it was running on the lines of the telegrams and letters which many hon. Members have received from that interested body, which wants to keep these canals going at great expense for its own private pleasure.

Mr. J. Wells: The right hon. Gentleman said that he is knowledgeable about canals. I remind him that angling in them is impossible unless there is a passage of boats keeping the canals clear. The boats are essential for fishing.

Mr. Bellenger: I am going to try to persuade the House, by giving an illustration from my own constituency, that if the Minister or the British Transport Commission are forced to maintain for navigation purposes the portion of the canal that goes through my constituency it will mean hardship to a large body of miners. I feel sure that many of my hon. Friends believe that the reasons which I am going to suggest for stopping the statutory obligation of the B.T.C. to maintain navigation rights are far more important than the arguments which the hon. Member for Maidstone put forward.
The hon. Member for Maidstone mentioned the Chesterfield Canal. Part of that canal runs through my constituency. I have had discussions with the Minister of Transport about a matter which I should have thought carried as much practical weight, especially with hon. Members on this side of the House, as some of the arguments which have been put forward on what I would call a rose-coloured basis by the hon. Member for Maidstone.
The inhabitants in one of the colliery villages in my constituency, which is within three or four miles of a large town, have to make a wide detour to get to this large town. Among them are old-age pensioners who wish to draw their pensions. They have to make this detour because no public transport can run over the old-fashioned, out-of-date hump-backed bridge which was erected in the last century to allow barges to

have 8-ft. headroom. The anomalous and farcical situation is that this portion of the canal has not been used by traffic for years. The local authority which wants to culvert this canal—which would stop navigation along the canal—would have to spend five times as much from public funds to erect a bridge, leaving 8-ft of headroom over the canal and providing navigation rights which are not wanted and have not been wanted for many years.
In my discussions with the Minister I have urged that he should include in the Bill provisions bringing statutory navigation rights to an end. If this were done—and I hope hon. Members will not oppose the Bill; some of them have good Committee points but I hope they will keep them for the Committee stage—we could proceed forthwith to open up the colliery village to which I have referred and the residents would be able to have public transport over the canal, because the hump-backed bridge would be removed and the canal would be culverted at comparatively small expense. A good deed would also have been done for the miners, whose case is just as important as the maintenance of the fishing rights to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham referred.
I have nothing against fishing. Fishing is a democratic and cheap form of sport which is practised by hundreds of thousands of working people. Good luck to them. I am not a fisherman, but we have to be careful what we advocate in pressing their point of view. If the Commission is forced to keep open waterways simply for the purpose of fishermen, we are asking for a very great charge to be imposed on it. It will be further in debit if it has to undertake these duties.
There are other features of the canals which are not so rosy as the picture which the hon. Member for Maidstone painted. I have here a letter from one of those lobbying in support of the Inland Waterways Association. It says:
May I, as a resident of your constituency, living within one hundred yards of this canal, point out the other side of this matter?
There is a great deal of difference between using this canal at weekends for pleasure only, and living near to a rat infested open sewer, as I and many other residents of this area consider this semi-stagnant rubbish depository to be.


That gentleman is not exaggerating. This matter is constantly drawn to my attention in my constituency, and I know it well. The letter goes on:
Has any of these weekend buccaneers any idea of the anxiety parents of young children can suffer if their children are missing for an hour when such an attraction is so near. Has any of them pulled a drowned child out of the canal as one of my near neighbours has? Can any of them imagine what the smell is like on a hot day? (The summer of 1959 was terrible.) I think not; they only see it when they want to.
I am not speaking on the wider issues which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley raised, although he said in opening that this affected his constituency. But I urge all hon. Members not to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. If they want to press certain constituency points, they can do so better in Committee.

Mr. Wigg: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how we do that? How can I raise this matter in Committee?

Mr. Bellenger: I should have thought that my hon. Friend could have raised the general issues, apart from the Dudley aspect.

Hon. Members: How?

Mr. Bellenger: There are many opportunities—on Supply days, for instance.

Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend must not get away with this. He and I have had many controversies, and he must not now run away from what he said. He claimed that hon. Members could raise these matters as Committee points. How?

Mr. Bellenger: I am referring to the particular constituency issue which my hon. Friend mentioned at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. Wigg: I was careful to say that I was raising an issue far beyond the question of a constituency point. I should have thought that even an apprentice to the Parliamentary system would oppose a Bill of this nature, because this is one of the few opportunities a back bencher has of raising matters of this kind. I should be failing in my duty if I did not do so.

Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friend raised the wider issue, but I am not concerned at the moment with it, except with that part dealing with his own constituency. I am concerned also with the part which relates to my constituency. The hon. Member for Maidstone has suggested that the Committee be instructed to omit certain portions of the Bill, including that referring to the Chesterfield Canal, which runs through my constituency. The only argument I am offering is that the House should not throw out this Bill.

Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend cannot have read the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) is seeking to give the Committee an Instruction, because that is the only thing he can do.

Mr. Bellenger: I am opposing the hon. Member for Maidstone, that is all. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley wishes to vote against the Bill, let him do so tonight. I am appealing to the hon. Member for Maidstone on the ground, which I have explicitly put, of my own constituency, which I thought the hon. Member for Maidstone was advocating when he opened his speech. I hope that the House will see that I have a strong point of view about my own constituency. It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has a stronger point of view on the general issue. If he wants to test it, let him vote. If he does, I shall support the Bill.

Mr. Jack Jones: On the point of the letter from his constituent which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) read about the child who might be absent for an hour, I would point out that in Warrington, an industrial town, there are 8,000 boy members of the angling association. The association has never heard of any parents complaining. Child delinquency there is less than in any city. When the children are fishing on the canal bank the parents know where they are. The angling association should not be blamed if a local authority allows a canal to be clogged up with old prams and similar rubbish.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not want to over-stress that point. It was not the purpose of my intervention. I lived in London


for many years in the neighbourhood of the Union Canal and there were constant drownings there, but I recognise that the answer to that problem is proper protection of the canals.
My main point in opposing the hon. Member for Maidstone, while supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham on angling, is that 1 want the powers in the Bill to be given to the Transport Commission. The hon. Member for Maidstone represents Maidstone and I represent Bassetlaw and I am entitled to say that I disagree with him.

Mr. J. Wells: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I deplored the fact that the Transport Commission did not divide the Chesterfield Canal into two—the derelict part which passes through the right hon. Gentleman's constituency and the other part. Had it been divided clearly in the Bill I could have gone the whole way with it.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I am glad to have the opportunity of following in the debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I entirely agree with the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). I do not think that there is anything between those of us who want these four canal closures to be moved out of the Bill. Chesterfield Canal is 45 miles long. We are asking the Minister to give an undertaking that only 20 miles of it should be closed, as recommended by the Par-ham Committee. These are the 20 miles in and near the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw. They are in a bad state, derelict and unsafe. The Parham Committee has recommended that right of navigation on them should be extinguished. We are in entire agreement with that.
We are asking that on the remaining 25 miles, which are used for fishing, boating and other purposes, the right of navigation should not be extinguished just yet. We feel that that section is not in such a bad state. The Parham Committee did not recommend that this section should be closed. We feel that

it should be kept open until the new authority takes over and decides what to do with all the constituent parts of the canal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone made an excellent speech and put the whole case clearly. There is only one point that I want to add, and it relates to Dudley Tunnel. My hon. Friend said that the British Transport Commission had quoted a figure for rebuilding this bridge rather than putting up an embankment, but that some other authority had given a different figure and suggested that this was something that ought to be looked into.
As I understand it, the British Transport Commission has come forward with this proposal because the need to rebuild this bridge or do something about it is now urgent. It has been drawn to my attention that as recently as 30th December a British Railways spokesman was saying something different. I have been shown a cutting from the County Express of that date in which the spokesman of British Railways said that the
proposal to replace the bridge at the north end of the tunnel was not being made because the bridge was unsafe, but because it would save future renewals …
He went on to say that the bridge was becoming due for renewal.
I must go back to the Parham Committee which said that this matter should be looked at again if and when the bridge became unsafe and it was urgently necessary to do something about it. This, I understand, is what the British Transport Commission is now saying, but it did not say that on 30th December, and this Bill was produced before that date.
I do not know the rights of the matter, but I think that this emphasises the point that this must be looked at carefully because there are conflicting opinions about cost and about the need. If the cost of keeping this canal open is shown to be astronomically high and the need is urgent, then we get a different picture. But I am not suggesting that this is the case, and I ask my hon. Friend to give an undertaking that this will be looked at and that if it is found in Committee that there is any doubt about it, this closure will be struck out, because, as has been demonstrated,


there is a considerable body of opinion which, far various reasons, would like to see this canal left open. I should like to see the right of navigation preserved in canals wherever possible until the new Authority takes over and has had time to make up its mind.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I should have been glad to speak on this occasion if only to make a melancholy protest about the catalogue in the Second Schedule to the Bill, and to join other hon. Members in lamenting the passing of many miles of canal, most of which I remember walking beside more than forty years ago as a boy, some in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and others in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire.
I regret, above all, that the controversies on this matter have in some way soured public opinion on this question of waterways and made it more and not less difficult to find a solution. I think that there has been a little too much willingness to keep this as a convenient stick with which to beat the Transport Commission from time to time and to have a sort of night out.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite who speak to the brief of the Inland Waterways Association have had a long time to convert their party to their ideas. There have been ample opportunities for most of these decisions to have been taken, and I should have thought that it was time to drop this sort of disproportionate protest about canoeists, anglers, and so on, and to try to get the amenity situation looked at as a whole by some independent body like the Civic Trust or the National Trust. I should have thought that the Transport Commission could be induced to hand over on those terms the stretches of waterway, that it might well follow the same principle as applies when things are given to the National Trust, and that it should not be too niggardly about giving away with the waterways any buildings and property attached to them which might provide some income for their upkeep and improvement.
However, my main reason for rising at this late hour of the night is also a constituency one. I follow my hon.

Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in saying that we should not give a Second Reading to the Bill because we have not a proper, comprehensive and co-ordinated development of the essential transport facilities necessary to meet the nation's future needs.
My hon. Friend gave us an example. He said that if we interfered with the circulation system we got thrombosis, which for him was a singularly elegant turn of phrase; I take it that that was Parliamentary Greek for a "clot". If the "clot" were to be identified he would be within reach of legitimate Parliamentary attack. He would be the person who decided to go out and buy the most expensive and efficient brains that could be found in management in industry and then failed to give the right kind of directive to which that brain could bend its energies. It seems to me rather like firing off an extremely expensive rocket at the moon in its present position, making no calculation for the fact that the moon would have moved when this expensive instrument arrived there. Social conditions are changing. The very changes which the Commission is being urged to make will involve other changes, which will render nugatory the improvements that have already taken place.
Hon. Members have spoken of the difficulties of rural areas. They have talked about the closing of canals and branch lines, but they have spoken only of the sufferings of the rural areas. Let it not be supposed that an area like Paddington, around one of the main line stations, does not suffer directly from the absence of a sensible transport policy. The Commission is unable to retain its skilled men in the service because of housing difficulties. That means a turnover and a wastage, because the incentive to find regular employment on the railways is not as powerful as it was years ago. In order to secure the services of skilled men something else must be offered—and the one thing that cannot be offered is a home.
One of the sad things that happen in the great conurbations—as it is now fashionable to call them—is that we start alternative transport schemes without any special plan. We say that the roads are crowded and that we must


build some more. The alternative transport system which involved the Cromwell Road extension and widening meant the pulling down of dwellings and the consequent rehousing of people who otherwise would not have need to be rehoused—a number of people almost exactly equal to the number on the waiting list in Paddington. Apart from the human suffering involved—a point which I must not develop now—that made it much less likely that the mainline station would be able to recruit the type of young labour that it needs if its modernisation schemes are to be carried out and if it is to develop the improvement in the efficiency and the standards of the transport system which we all hope to see.
I regret that there is nothing in the Bill to show that the Commission has been taking seriously some remarks made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. One or two throw-away remarks have been made, not in the House but on public platforms, about the number of acres of railway land which might be used for housing purposes in London. People have said that it is a pity that the railways have not the power to do that. I am not sure about that. At least, if they have not got it they could get it in a Private Bill of this kind, because it would not be a major change of policy.
The railways have had powers for a hundred years to provide dwellings for their workers in places where no such dwellings existed—for crossing keepers in remote country lanes and station masters in places where they needed to be housed. I should have thought they could have afforded to house them in London. "But", someone will interrupt, "they have no money." The map of my constituency shows 10 acres of railway land which could be covered over. The man who goes into the market to find a developer is not necessarily devoid of resources if he can offer 10 acres of land in the middle of London, even if it would cost a great deal to cover it over. I support that it would be worth about £10 million and it would not cost a third of that amount.
It might then be objected that there could not be shops and other development, yet stations are littered with the greatest variety of merchandise. What is to prevent the Transport Commission

from owning, sharing, buying and otherwise developing commercial trade in its properties? Near to Paddington Station there are these possibilities. There are also all these clever people who have shown what can be done with new techniques of high building on the South Bank, pumping up great quantities of liquid cement. There is all this new knowledge at our disposal. Why, therefore, has someone not included the people we need to house in central London and some proposal to house them—not in narrow little tubes going up into the sky, but in decent housing at the edge of the railways?
We do not want to live in the smoke and the grime but to have a vast leap forward in city design and the new kind of living of which we have not yet had experience, but which we need. If we bought the best brains with the biggest salaries and told them that this was what they had to work out, they could cope with the people who are at present commuting by public transport and being squeezed out. Because of the discomfort and increasing cost, they are taking to the roads and grinding themselves to a halt. They want new houses. What is the next step? The next step—who can blame them—will be a great increase in the number trying to acquire for themselves a pied á terre in the centre of London, a remote flatlet in the struggle to get normal living accommodation for those who are needed to do the servicing of the transport system of London.
This is a serious threat. It is not a question of a few spivs here and there, or a few exploiters, or incompetent old widows who cannot look after and manage their property. These are major social influences which never seem to be noticed in time, this erosion of building sites which will deprive us of the working people needed on the railways.
I am glad to have the opportunity to make my protest that this Bill is put before us full of little things which do not reveal as they might indications that the bigger issues have been considered. I think that the blame lies with the Government for not having had the courage to give that wider directive to those whose skills they have purchased and whom they have brought in to solve this problem. No particular good has been


done by the rather dilettante interventions of those with a very limited view of amenity. I am not being disrespectful to the hon. Members concerned, but that particular argument does not fit with the question of what is to be the grand design for transport in a generation's time.
I hope that before we get another Bill of this kind we shall have a better indication of that. I am sure that it is shaping in the brains of young people, of all parties and in all parts of the community. It is time that the Government gave it encouragement and produced the sort of scheme which we all hoped would be the basis of the work of the Transport Commission by now.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Mr. Speaker, my name is Hale and I entered the House in 1945 on election, fortuitously, by a very small majority. I do not normally intrude in the affairs of the House, because we have standing orders in the party which preclude me from saying basically what I think. It is only because we are now talking about a Private Bill which does not seem to be controversial that I have thought that I can say something on behalf of my electors in Oldham, who have been very kind to me.
We have had a long discussion about canals, which are no doubt important. I do not for a moment under-estimate their importance. I thought that the twenty-seven pages of prepared impromptus by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), who initiated this discussion, were on the whole quite tolerable, but there was a moment at which, I am told by my hon. Friends, I appeared to lose the patience which has been one of the characteristics of my political life. I regret it if that was so, but I have travelled from Manchester to Oldham by train and all this nonsense about canals and all this bilge and lousy stuff about fishing clubs is nothing to do with the conditions of the working man travelling home every night from Manchester in circumstances in which it is physically indecent for any girl to get into a train at all. The trains are crowded and the conditions are miserable and deplorable.
In the past ten years we have passed ten amending Acts to the Transport Act.

I speak as a retired solicitor, and probably a tired solicitor, too. We now have a basic Act. Then we have an enabling Act. Now we are passing a disabling Act. There cannot be anything funnier than that, if we have a sense of humour. But we have not a sense of humour now. We have long ceased to have a sense of humour. We passed an Act in 1959 saying, "In three years we will do something." We pass a Measure in 1962—this is it—saying, "We will give them another three years to do something and, if they do not do it by then, we shall have to do something about it."
We are not now talking about boating on the Thames. We are not discussing who would win. We are not concerned with bumping. We are concerned with getting people to work. Hon. Members opposite must not grin. They should have a guilt complex about this. Of all the burdens that the Tory Government have put upon the people this is one of the worst. I live six miles from Westminster. It is very easy for me to get here—a bob each way on the train, and 3d. on the tube, and so on. I could get here for half a dollar. It is now 3s. 3d., I think. That is not much for those of us who have a bob in our pockets, but it is hell for those who have to pay it out of their weekly income. It is certainly hell for members of families who are alii paying for it. Most of them are.
A few years ago the fare for the six miles from Dulwich was 1s. At the moment it is 1s. 5d. That is not much to those of us who, although perhaps we are not very well off, at least have enough to buy ourselves a peppermint and soda without remorse. And do not let us forget that the system of season tickets on the London suburban railways is such that on short distances it costs as much for five days as it could for six. It is so organised that one has to pay pretty well the full fare for five days.
I have travelled from Manchester to Oldham and, as I have said, Oldham is worried about its transport arrangements. We have four stations in Oldham, which is rather a lot, but Oldham is a curious, elongated town. It is a long distance between each station, and it would be a great hardship if one of


them were closed—and there is talk of that. If anybody travelled from Manchester to Oldham at night he would find himself in an overcrowded train—so overcrowded that it would be just as bad as any train I have seen on the London suburban system. That is the normal thing every night.
I do not worry about the hon. Member's twenty-seven pages on boating; they were pretty good. I say, quite frankly, that if Oldham people boated home I would support him. But the Oldham people are miserably, stinkingly overcrowded, in indecent conditions, right after night—and now we are told about Sir Someone What's 'is Name, or Dr. Beecham, or Beeching & Son-there are so many of them I get mixed up—someone who gets £24,000 a year, and who, so far as I know, has not done a damn' thing since he got the job.
I do not like the idea of giving a second douceur to Sir Brian Robertson, and I am told that if this Bill does not go through Sir Brain's £12,500 of "golden handshake" will not be permitted. I have read the Bill and I do not know why that should be. But I have also read the Daily Express, which tells me that that is so. And anybody who reads the Daily Express will know that the hon. Member for Solihull (Sir M. Lindsay) has given it his virtual support, so that we have to treat that newspaper with some reverence we did not give it before.
I want to say, very humbly, that the correspondence I had from Sir Brian Robertson while he was in charge of the British Transport Commission was by far the best I have ever had from any sort of organisation of a national character. He was always charming, always helpful. He always did his best. The correspondence I have had from Dr. Beeching really stinks—and I will send copies of it to any Minister who wishes to see it. This is really a sort of dictator who has no ground at all for talking to democracy.
That is only a limited correspondence and I may be unjust, but I can say that the correspondence I had from Sir Brian Robertson was charming, and courteous and helpful. He even tried to arrange trains for Oldham wakes week during a national strike, and I loved him for that. If he wants his douceur he can have

it from me—although I do not thank that he should. I would permit myself to say that, on the whole, "golden handshakes" twice are rather more than one should have in a normal lifetime. I venture to say to the authorities that I have not had one once, but that sort of thing does not excite my mind.
Our transport system is one of the most important things we have, but there is no question but that the Tory Government have tried to run it down. We get a further indication from the various transport committees, and so on—British, Welsh, and Scottish. It is pretty tough, it really is, that when they have run down the whole national system they should start to run down the individual system, too.
They say, "We run a fast express from London to Aberystwyth, and time it to do 28 miles an hour-"—they call it the North Wales Express, or something like that—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The Cambrian Coast Express.

Mr. Hale: Yes--there it is; it is almost deceiving. This train runs at 28 miles an hour, and we tell the world's railway experts, "It is very difficult. The Cambrian Coast Express is our best train, but it is not making a profit." This is monstrous—but this sort of thing shows itself in all the reports that we receive.
May I, for a moment, look at Oldham as a man with no particular expertise? I may be completely wrong. I have been wrong before, but not always. In politics I am nearly always right. If hon. Members would care to bear with me I could give a list of the occasions when I have been right. I should probably be out of order in doing so, but it would be a fascinating list. Perhaps I was right just by chance. Southern Rhodesia and Orpington are a couple. There are others. If anyone wants a full list of the items will they please let me know? They can write to me. In the meantime let us return to our muttons.
I take it that we wish really to consider the relationship of British Railways to the country. I am not now going to raise political issues which are obvious and which every hon. Member opposite


understands. I am not now going to say, "Of course, the party opposite hived off road transport, and so on, and ditched it by making it almost impractical". Everyone knows that. I am not now going to say anything like that because, frankly, hon. Members opposite really did appoint a bloke who was their bloke and then they gave him orders which virtually involved the necessity of cutting out profitable stations. I do not want to be controversial. I am anxious tonight to be matey.
Let us look at the situation in the light of events and in the light of the restrictions hon. Members opposite have decided to put on our transport system—extremely regrettable restrictions. If one is really to look at the system one must look at the capital assets for a moment. Oldham has its four stations and we want them. The Government need not close them down. But Oldham has a mass of old railways running through the town, bisecting the town. Going around the country I have found that this sort of thing is happening everywhere. In many towns—despite the committees, the advisory bodies and the rest—there are these masses of old, tangled railways. The Government close down profitable systems, but no one seems to have considered these blank, useless areas which came to the railways in 1865 but which no one has considered since.
I should have thought that this complete bisection of Oldham does the town nothing but harm. A committee considering this independently in Oldham would show that four or five lines of railways could be closed down so that the town could be opened up. A bridge could be erected and the amenities of the place could be considerably altered. The result would be a profit, and there are scores of other places where the same could be done.
I urge the Minister to consider this. Here am I, popping up with a suggestion, realising that the House may feel that I am wrong, appreciating that, in a year or two, the Government will adopt such a move, discovering that I was right but praising themselves for their insight. Oh dear. To think that it all started with an odd back bencher popping up without restriction of the Standing Orders and making an observation.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Second Reading of a Bill of this sort is always an opportunity for private Members to make a few comments about their constituency troubles, or to express general grievances against the body that is bringing the Bill to the House. On this occasion, a number of my hon. Friends and a number of hon. Members opposite have so expressed themselves and made effective contributions to the debate.
I rise only to say a few words from the Front Bench because of some observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who seemed to be in doubt about where his colleagues and I stood in these important transport matters which he has raised. He spoke largely of the problem in and around his constituency and the North-West Midlands, but I remind him that the problems confronting his constituents and those who live near his constituency are almost identical with those which confront people all over the land, and will confront them in greater numbers during the next year or two. Therefore, the problem which my hon. Friend has raised is not a local one, but a national one, and, for that reason, all the more important.
If my hon. Friend asks what is our attitude to railway closures and such problems, I have to remind him that we have been debating these very matters in the House on numerous occasions during the last year or two and particularly vigorously upstairs in Standing Committee E for the last few months, three sittings a week. My hon. Friend may well say that although the Committee sits in public, not much of what we do is reported in the Press.

Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend must at least give me credit for being able to read. Of course I have looked at the Committee reports. What I have tried to find in what has been said by my right hon. Friend and other experts and, indeed, by the Minister, is coherent principles. I have made inquiries and f understand perfectly well the general line. I do not want to be unkind about it. What I am looking for is a basic plan for action. Tonight, I have put forward a basis of action. First, we should establish what our present transport


situation is and how it is likely to develop.

Mr. Strauss: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support for a point of view and a policy which I and my colleagues have been expressing for some time. We have expressed it on the appropriate opportunities—that is, when Transport Bills are brought forward by the Government. If my hon. Friend cares to read the debate on, for example, Second Reading of the Transport Bill last November, or the debate in the House on the Government's proposal for reorganising the transport system, he will find closely argued discussion on this point from both sides, including speeches from myself and my colleagues from the Front Bench. He cannot, therefore, say that we have not thought out a policy or expressed it, both in the House and outside, on many occasions.

Mr. Wigg: Of course my right hon. Friend has said these things. I have read them. I understand perfectly what he has said. What I am looking for is coherent principles on which action could be based, but that I cannot find. If, now, my right hon. Friend agrees with me when I argue that there should be surveys—and my constituency is taking it in association with Birmingham to get it done by the local authority—I am delighted.

Mr. Strauss: It does not much matter whether I agree with my hon. Friend, or he agrees with me. We have, apparently, been thinking along the same lines, and I, at least, have been expressing the view for many a long day, both inside the House and outside, as my colleagues have done, that, briefly, there should be a survey of the national transport requirements. Not only should there be a survey concerning the railway requirements or the road requirements, but the situation should be considered as a whole. We have pressed that upon the Government. They have been telling us in Committee upstairs that they now have such a Departmental survey in operation. I am not defending the Government, or saying that their plan is adequate, large enough or is not too late, but that is what they tell us.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend when he says that in this matter we

are very much behind the Americans. They have made these surveys. They have gone ahead in what they call traffic engineering—a curious name for surveys of transport problems—and they have done it on a scale far greater than anything we have attempted here. We have advocated many times that we should undertake traffic engineering in this country on a scale comparable with what is done in the United States. The Government are now beginning to do it.

Mr. Wigg: I do not want to be hypercritical, and I do not wish to keep interrupting, but the argument breaks down if it is done by the Ministry of Transport. What I understand by the expression that my right hon. Friend has used is this. The Americans are taking a synoptic view of the development of the community as a whole, of which transport is only one part. I have expressed myself badly, and I apologise. That is what I am asking for. That is what the Government have failed to do, and that is what I am delighted to find my right hon. Friend agreeing with me about.

Mr. Strauss: I am glad that there is no difference between us. I only protest to my hon. Friend that, when he accuses us of not having expressed this sort of idea, he forgets that we have on many occasions done so. We have put it very strongly. We have done it not only recently, and, no doubt, we shall be expressing such ideas again within a week or two, when we take the Third Reading of the Transport Bill.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that such grievances as he and others of my hon. Friends have expressed should be directed against the Government rather than the Transport Commission. The Commission, whose Bill this is, is, broadly, carrying out the policy dictated to it by the Government. Dr. Beeching, in his activities, is carrying out Government policy.
Therefore, if my hon. Friend wants to express vigorously in this House his disagreement with that policy or the inadequacy of it, rather than vote against the Commission when it comes to the House to seek powers to do certain necessary things to improve our transport, he should express his lack of confidence in the Government by voting against their Transport Bill, in which


case we should support him. Indeed, we have voted against the Government's Transport Bill. That is a more effective and better way than preventing the Transport Commission from doing certain things which it needs to do and which my hon. Friend and I want it to do.
I come now to the subject of waterways. During the passage of the Transport Bill through Committee upstairs, and in the many discussions we have had on inland waterways, we have discovered that the inland waterways lobby is the most powerful of all in the House. It approaches us on every possible occasion with a great amount of paper. It has in the House several hon. Members who are interested in waterways. They are exceedingly active and vocal. We are always made fully aware of the needs and requirements of inland waterways, particularly of the need to expand them, and of the horror with which we should regard the possibility of closing any of them.
Most of my colleagues do not accept the case that no waterways must ever be closed. I do not think that anyone does. It is quite impossible for us in the House to decide which should be closed and which should not. It seems to me, at least, sensible that the Transport Commission, which, presumably, has a case for closing certain waterways which goes further than some hon. Members think is desirable, should have that case examined in the Committee upstairs. The Commission does not, I imagine, want to close waterways for the fun of it. It has a case, good or bad, and that case should be considered. Any local authority or other body whose interests are affected if a certain waterway is closed can state its case fully before the Committee.
For my part, therefore, while agreeing with many of the criticisms which have been expressed by my hon. Friends, in strong language, which I think it merits, of the Government's policy towards our transport system and their lack of a national survey of our transport requirements, I am not prepared to vote against the Bill. If such a vote succeeded, it might have undesirable consequences. But my hon. Friends have served a useful purpose in expressing, very ably, with such vehemence and with such vigour, some of the grievances which they feel so strongly and which their constituents

feel. We know that these railway closures will become a national phenomenon and will present ever more difficulties.
It is as well, therefore, that the Government should be made aware of the strong feeling which is held by many hon. Members who represent the victims of the Government's closure policy, particularly when the Government, as no doubt will be the case, in the next year or two endorse the Transport Commission's proposals to carry out many closures of this sort all over the country.

12.36 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I begin by expressing on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport his apologies for his absence. It had been his intention to listen to the debate and to take part in it, but he has been laid low with a very severe chill, from which I hope he will soon recover, and he has asked me to express his apologies to the House and to substitute for him.
This is likely to be the last Bill presented by the British Transport Commission. Under the Transport Bill, a Government Measure to which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) referred, the Commission is to be dissolved and to be replaced by a number of separate organisations. Nevertheless, there is every reason why this Bill should receive consideration by the House and should be passed into law, because it seeks powers for the Commisssion for the remaining period of its existence which will be of considerable importance and utility to the Commission and will help to promote the greater efficiency of our transport system.
Bills of this kind are general purposes Bills which seek powers for such things as new work, the acquisition of land, the closure of canals and miscellaneous subjects. Before I turn to the major issues raised in the course of the debate I want to say something about the background to the canals problem which, as has been the custom in recent years, has ranked quite high in the discussion. The inland waterways are always a controversial subject, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall said. With the exception of the four canals which have been


specifically referred to in the debate, all of the 19 lengths of canal listed in the Second Schedule, with one very minor exception, were recommended for closure to navigation by the Inland Waterways Redevelopment Committee.
I think that it is important to put on the record what is meant by "closure". Clause 15 is permissive. It does not oblige the Commission physically to close the canals; it merely authorises the Commission to close them. It therefore puts these canals in very much the same position as that which nearly all the railways already occupy. Railway services can be withdrawn and railway lines can be torn up without restriction by the House, except that the Minister of Transport has the power of directing the Commission not to proceed with any such proposals if he wishes to.
What the Commission seeks to do in the Bill with reference to canals is to put them on the same footing as that on which the railways already stand. With two very small exceptions, the canals mentioned in the Bill are all disused canals on which there is no commercial navigation at all. There are certain exceptions—the Trent and Mersey Canal, the Burslem arm of which is only 660 yards long, and the City Road basin of the Regent's Canal where a navigable channel is to be left—but there are no proposals in the Bill for commercially-used canals, although I must tell the House that there are a great many of these commercially-used canals which are still operating at a considerable loss.
There is a widespread fallacy that it is much cheaper to abandon canals than to restore them. It is quite untrue. It is based on a confusion of thought between closing a canal to navigation, which often means nothing more than keeping it as a water channel and economising on its maintenance, and, on the other hand, total elimination—that is to say, filling in. This latter course of filling in is normally adopted only for special reasons—for example, where one wishes to carry out building development—but it is very seldom applied to the whole of a closed canal.
Occasionally, one hears references to the term "abandonment" and that means leaving canals to decay without

further maintenance. Abandonment in this sense is not proposed for any of the canals mentioned in the Bill. The restoration of a disused canal for commercial or even any kind of navigation almost always costs more than redevelopment for simple purposes, such as water supply, which require the minimum of maintenance.
To restore the lengths of canal in the present Bill would cost, I am advised, about £700,000 plus £25,000 a year in additional maintenance costs. This is over and above the present loss on these canals of £35,000 a year. The Commission's proposals will cost at the outside about £250,000 spread over a number of years, and this money would only be spent as and when it would produce worthwhile reductions in the present maintenance cost.
It is important for me to say a word about the general financial plight of the waterways, because I think that some people are rather inclined, as one hon. Member said, to look at these problems through rose-tinted glasses. The average operating deficit of the British Waterways over the last three years—that is to say, 1958–60—was £600,000 a year. For 1961, it is expected that the operating deficit will be about £850,000. In addition, the carrying services run by the Transport Commission are losing somewhere between £150,000 and £250,000 a year. These figures, incidentally, include nothing whatever for interest on capital charges. In the most recent year for which we have figures we know that there is an overall loss on British Waterways of over £1 million, and this is a worse deficit in proportion to turnover even than the railways show.
I have put those facts and figures on record because they must form the background to what I now want to say about the four separate canals. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins), have made an eloquent plea against the proposals for these four canals. They have singled these particular canals out of the 19 canals mentioned in the Schedule because they say that on these four the Inland Waterways Redevelopment Advisory Committee did not recommend immediate closure to navigation.
May I say, first, a word or two about this Inland Waterways Redevelopment Advisory Committee. This is not the time for me to express my right hon. Friend's thanks to the members of that Committee for their work, because their work is not yet completed, but I can say, even at this stage, that we realise how difficult a task they have had.
At the same time—and I am sure that they themselves would be the first to appreciate it—they are an Advisory Committee, and the responsibility for reaching decisions on their recommendations remains, quite rightly, with the Minister. Similarly, the ownership of the waterways and all the duties and obligations which attach to that rest upon the Commission. So, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, it is not the right sort of language to complain that this Bill flouts the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, because that Committee is advisory and it is for the Minister to decide whether, and to what extent, he is prepared to accept its advice.
The Committee was appointed in 1959 to consider schemes of redevelopment for waterways whose usefulness for transport had dwindled or disappeared altogether, or which might still have value—for instance, for drainage or water supply. The Committee has submitted a number of reports, many of which have supported schemes put forward by the Commission. Where the Minister has decided to operate them, they have been presented to Parliament by the Commission in its annual Bills—both last year, the year before, and now this year. We have studied all the reports of the Committee with the greatest care. This is particularly so where the Committee has not seen fit to agree with schemes for redevelopment or closure which the Commission has presented.
In some of these cases, my right hon. Friend has still not yet come to a decision, because it seems to him that the issues at stake are bound up with rather wider questions of policy on the future of the inland waterways as a whole. On these, the House will find no proposals in the Bill, simply because the Commission needs his approval before presenting its Bills. But there

have been some cases where the Minister has not been able to go the whole way with the Committee, and where it seemed to him that it would be wrong to go on postponing action. These are three out of the four cases which are concerned in this debate—the Chesterfield and Erewash Canals and the old Stratford cut of the Grand Union Canal.
As I have said, a disused canal is not like a disused railway. It is not merely a question of not spending money. Money has to be spent on a disused canal to prevent it becoming a danger or nuisance, and money must often be spent by highway authorities—for example, on bridges—which otherwise could be saved. For this reason the Commission and the Minister have had to take steps to reduce these unproductive expenditures as soon as possible. The present statutory position is unsatisfactory. At the moment, the Commission has a duty to maintain these canals in a fit state for full commercial navigation. If there is no good case for spending the sums which would be necessary for that purpose, that duty should be removed.
I cannot see any point whatever in waiting until the new Inland Waterways Authority, which we propose in the Transport Bill, is in being. The Authority will have to face exactly the same practical problems as the Commission itself. It will have the same duty to reduce its deficit as well as it can. Where the right course is reasonably clear, as I suggest it is here, there is no justification for postponing action any longer. There would be a delay of at least a year and perhaps more if we had to wait for the new Authority to be set up and vested with its assets.
Dealing with the Chesterfield Canal, the Advisory Committee proposed immediate closure of 20 miles, which included a collapsed tunnel, a dried up section, and at least one road bridge urgently in need of reconstruction. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) gave the House an interesting description of the difficulties his constituents and local council have been facing for some time as a consequence of this situation. The Parham Committee proposed to retain 25 miles for


navigation and to repair it for pleasure boating at considerable cost.
The figure estimated was about £24,000 more in capital works than the Commission's proposals and would cost an additional £2,000 a year to maintain. After prolonged and careful consideration we are convinced that formal closure to navigation is justified. The recommendation to restore the canal for pleasure boating is in some ways an act of faith. Nobody—no authority, no society, no body, public or private, has yet come forward to contribute to the extra expense, and I really must take leave to wonder whether the taxpayer should be expected to shoulder such a risk, because that is what it means. However, we want to go as far as we possibly can to meet the wishes of the Advisory Committee and of my hon. Friends.
The Minister has asked the Commission, in view of the Committee's recommendation, to maintain the status quo on the 25-mile section until the future possibilities can be seen a little more clearly and he can decide how best they should be handled. The Commission has given him an assurance that it will do so and I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that that is really as far as we can reasonably go.
As to the old Stratford cut, the Committee recommended a waiting period to see if a possible demand for pleasure boating justified the cost of restoration. This canal is unnavigable now, and for part of the year is completely dried up. Here again the future, as envisaged by the Advisory Committee, is a matter of pure speculation, and I cannot think that it would be reasonable to expect the Commission to remain saddled with the duty to maintain this length in a fit state for full navigation in perpetuity. Here again, the Minister has asked the Commission for an undertaking—and it has given it to him—that it will do nothing and allow nothing to be done to prejudice the possibility of pleasure boating until there is a chance to see what demand there is likely to be.
The Committee had no positive proposals for the Erewash Canal. It merely suggested that closure should not wait for future deterioration. The trouble is that there has been damage

by mining subsidence as recently as 1957, and if there is any more the Commission might well be let in for considerable expense if the canal is to be retained for full navigation. The proposal refers to the five-mile section from Langley Mill to Ilkeston. The remaining seven miles from Ilkeston to Trent Lock, which is extensively used by houseboats and pleasure craft, will remain open to navigation. The section to be closed has not been used for commercial navigation for ten years and it is not attractive enough to tempt pleasure boats. There is some fishing which yields a revenue of about £30 a year. The only useful function of this section is to supply water for agriculture and to the rest of the canal.
If the canal is closed it will be adapted for use as a water channel. This will involve an eventual expenditure of £2,500 on the replacement of lock gates by cascades or weirs as the need arises. If the canal were retained for navigation there would eventually have to be expenditure of between £7,000 and £10,000 on the replacement of lock gates, and more would need to be spent on maintenance, dredging and lock repairs. I am sure that it is right to close this section before further deterioration takes place rather than wait until after it has happened. As the House knows, mining subsidence is a danger which often comes without warning.
I have heard my hon. Friends views and I hope that they have now understood what ours are. The Bill will go to a Select Committee if the House gives it a Second Reading and we have no doubt that it will be very carefully scrutinised by our colleagues. The Preamble of the Bill includes the words:
And whereas … it is expedient that the Commission should be relieved of their obligations to maintain the said portions of any of such waterways for navigation …
If the Select Committee decides after a full inquiry that that part of the preamble is not properly proved, I am sure that it will amend the Bill as necessary. My right hon. Friend proposes to make a report on the Bill in the usual way to the Committee, and if my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight would like him to do so I am sure that he will include in it a reference to the view that they have expressed, as well as his own.
That leaves me with the Dudley Canal, which is in a slightly different category. The Advisory Committee did not recommend that it should be retained permanently as a navigation. It simply said that no decision on the closure should be made until it became necessary to replace the railway bridge at the northern end of the Dudley Tunnel. The Committee suggested that when that happened the balance of interests in the future of the canal should be reviewed.
The Minister was informed three months after that that recent tests by British Railways had shown that the bridge urgently need reconstruction by this year. In the meantime, it had been necessary to impose a speed limit of 20 miles an hour on both tracks, and this happens to be one of the Western Region's main lines.
My right hon. Friend then followed the advice of the Committee. He reviewed the balance of interests and decided that it was right to allow the tunnel to be blocked at one end by an embankment which would cost, I am advised, several thousand pounds less to construct than a new bridge.
In the course of the debate reference has been made to the possibility of the railway line being closed. As I said to the hon. Member for Dudley in an intervention, I assure the House that there is no likelihood of the line being closed in the foreseeable future. The withdrawal of local passenger services is being proposed, but goods traffic and some main line passenger services will continue in any case.

Mr. Wigg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has got his brief wrong. What main line trains run over this section? I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to stop at this point and make further inquiries, because he is wrong about that.

Mr. Hay: I was careful, before I came to the Box, to make sure that I had got my facts right, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am right.
That is the general situation, and that is how my right hon. Friend saw the picture. I ought to add that there has been a little misunderstanding on the part of some members of the Inland Waterways Advisory Committee as to whether or not the case should have

been referred back to them by the Minister before he came to any final conclusion. If that is so I am sorry, but the majority of the Committee, and certainly the chairman, did not expect that in the crcumstances the case would be referred back.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: The fact is that the majority of the Committee thought that it ought to have been referred back, and the chairman and one or two others did not think so.

Mr. Hay: Here again, I carefully checked my facts before I made my statement, and I understand the position to be as I have stated it.
My right hon. Friend came to his decision on this case of the Dudley Canal very carefully after looking at all the evidence before him, but once more, if my hon. Friends wish, when the Minister makes his report to the Committee on the Bill I am sure that he will mention the views that they have supported, as well as what we believe to be the right course
In considering this canal the Select Committee will have before it the proposals in the Bill, and the views which have been expressed on it. It will be in a position to judge whether what is proposed is the best and cheapest way of achieving the desired result, namely, the safe passage of trains on the permanent way above, and in addition the general question of whether the navigation on this waterway ought to be kept open

Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will verify that the main line runs up this line from Dudley? This is of fundamental importance. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House what these main line trains are.

Mr. Hay: I have said that I verified this before I came to the House, and I verified it before I came to the Box.
That is all that I propose to say about canals. I apologise for having taken some time in doing so, but the canals have ranked rather high in the debate. There has been a lot of discussion about them, and there were a number of matters that I wanted to get on record. There is a good deal of woolly thinking about the canals, but our job, as I have


said in Committee on the Transport Bill, is to try to keep our heads in a rather confusing and confused situation.
I now turn to the speeches of the hon. Member for Dudley, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who raised rather wider and different issues. I am aware that the matters with which the hon. Member for Dudley dealt are very close to his heart. Very rightly, he has taken a close interest in the proposals of the Commission which involve the services on one of the lines which serve his constituency. He has sent my right hon. Friend copies of correspondence he has had with the Chairman of the Commission about all this.
My right hon. Friend has quite deliberately refrained from commenting or intervening in the correspondence, because this is primarily related to the proposals for closing a particular railway line. As the hon. Member knows, these proposals are at present under consideration by the regional transport users' consultative committee. The upshot of that Committee's examination may well be a recommendation from the Central Transport Consultative Committee to my right hon. Friend the Minister. In that case he would have to consider whether he ought to give the Commission a direction about its proposals. I think that the hon. Member will understand that in those circumstances it is preferable that the Minister should not become involved in correspondence or discussions in which the merits of proposals which might eventually come to him through the statutory machinery might be in question.
I want to deal with the general aspect of what the hon. Member had to say. In the first place, the Amendment he put on the Order Paper referred to the omission from the Bill of a provision for ascertaining the nature and extent of existing transport problems. In his speech he pressed for greater use to be made of transport surveys. He mentioned American documents. They are not new in the Ministry of Transport. We have known about them for many years. We know all about these transport techniques.

Mr. Wigg: The Ministry cannot have known about them for many years. The reports were published only in 1961.

Mr. Hay: I should not have referred to the actual documents. I meant that the ideas and techniques used in the Philadelphia cases to which he referred have been known for years. I have read those reports.
Incidentally, 1 cannot regard it as the function of the Commission to carry out surveys of that kind. It is not the Commission's job to ascertain transport needs in general. The Commission is virtually the sole operator of the railways, but outside London there are many other transport operators. There are areas where the Commission has no bus interests at all, and where all the bus services are provided by municipal or private bus operators. In such areas it would be beyond the Commission's responsibility to undertake surveys to determine the nature and extent of existing transport problems.
At present, the Commission is engaged in cutting out unremunerative railway services in various parts of the country.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Minister be good enough to tell us whose function it is—in his opinion, or in the opinion of the Minister—to carry out a survey of the kind suggested?

Mr. Hay: It is not for me to say whose function it is. As the hon Member said, I told the Committee on the Transport Bill—as did my right hon. Friend—that we have established machinery inside the Ministry which looks after this side of affairs. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has been vigorous in expanding this side of the Ministry's activities. But we do not regard it as our function to carry out traffic surveys and transport surveys over a wide area. In that part of the question common sense itself provides the answer.
The main difficulty that one is up against—and the hon. Member for Dudley might contain his indignation until I have finished the sentence—is that we suffer not so much from a dearth of transport facilities as from a superfluity of them. Not least the fact has to be borne in mind that many people who formerly used public transport facilities by road or rail are now using private transport to an increasing extent.


The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South gave some interesting figures about the numbers of vehicles leaving Trafford Park by various exits. I noticed the numbers, of private cars and bicycles he quoted compared with the number of buses. This is the tendency throughout the country and it makes planning difficult. That is why we do not regard it as a major part of our duty to examine throughout the country various areas and to decide by whatever techniques exactly how the system should be planned.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman has told us that he has read the American surveys. So have I, not once but a couple of times. It is perfectly clear from them that the Americans have been faced for many years with this problem. It has gone further, this decline of mass transportation, to the point where there is no road or rail service, but they ask all through, "Do we know what to do?" The principle behind the Acts before Congress last year was that there should be demonstration surveys and research so that they could get to grips with the problem and avoid making the same mistakes again.

Mr. Hay: We know about the American experience and we are not in their situation. My right hon. Friend frequently refers to the fact that after his visit to Los Angeles he calculated that if we adopted the same system for London as the Americans have done, London would extend from Blackpool to Calais. The fact is that we have not yet been faced with that situation because we know what could happen if we allowed the motorised society to take charge. We can make necessary arrangements, as we are doing with parking, the use of traffic techniques and modernisation of the railways to improve and develop our public transport system and at the same time to control private traffic.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wigg rose—

Mr. Hay: There is a lot I want to say before I sit down. Obviously, the system which I mentioned earlier, of cutting out the unre-munerative railway services in various parts of the country, has to continue. Indeed, it must be intensified. There is

no doubt that this must be done in the light of the astronomical deficits which the Commission is at present running. The figure of £146 million last year was quoted by my right hon. Friend at this Box only a week or two ago. Both we and the Commission are very well aware of the desirability of seeing that where closures take place they do not take place without regard to the transport needs of the areas concerned. This is one of the reasons why the Commission always puts its closure proposals to the various transport users' consultative committees. Those committees take full account of whatever alternative transport facilities there are available when it is decided to recommend approval of closure proposals.

Mr. Wise: The trouble is that the transport users' consultative committee is not given the true facts at the right time. I quoted a case in which, in order to close one railway line, the Commission gave an undertaking to maintain adequate services on another line running in the same direction, but it had already got plans and schemes for ceasing to run adequate services on the other line. As the whole question of the canals is now based on my hon. Friend's statement of undertakings by the Transport Commission not to do certain things, can we have any faith in it at all?

Mr. Hay: I remember, when my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) interrupted at an earlier stage, making a mental note that, obviously, he had not read that Clause of the Transport Bill which requires the Railways Board in future to give advance notice of closure proposals on a much wider scale than has been the case up to now. That sort of complaint is the sort we have heard several times and the Commission freely admitted that it had made mistakes in the past. We give powers in the Transport Bill to the Railways Board to make known its closure proposals over a wide area much earlier than the Commission has done up to now.

Mr. Wise: It is not a question of the proposals. There has been a definite breach of an undertaking which was given in order to persuade the transport users' consultative committee to agree to the closure of a line.

Mr. Hay: Allegations of bad faith are sometimes made. I think that I should be prudent and not comment on them without far more information than my hon. Friend can possibly give me on the Floor of the House tonight.
There has been more than one instance recently where a committee's examination of a railway closure proposal has shown that the real reason why the line has been proposed for closure is that the railway has lost the great bulk of its passengers to local bus services or to private cars. In such cases what need can there be, I ask the hon. Member for Dudley, to institute a survey to determine what the public need by way of public transport? The public has already indicated its preference by abandoning the railway.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman has been very patient with me, but he does not seem to grasp the point. I gave the House an example of the proposals of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to decant 350,000 people just over the green belt. Industry is to be held in Birmingham and these people will commute. This is evidence of the policy. These factors Should be taken into account in assessing the transport needs. If this is not done we shall always be one stage behind in the game.

Mr. Hay: It would be appalling if that was the policy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but it is not. The policy of my right hon. Friend in dealing with the problem of the Birmingham conurbation is not to set large numbers of people down outside the green belt with the prospect that they will commute back into Birmingham. It is to set them down outside the green belt in places where local industry can develop and avoid, in future, the commuting problem. That is where the hon. Gentleman has gone wrong.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wigg rose—

Mr. Hay: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman a number of times and I moist now draw my remarks to a close at this time of the night.
I have tried to deal as clearly and as fully as I could with the issues raised

in the debate. Whatever views may be taken of what I have said, I think it is clear, both in respect of the canal proposals and the other proposals in the Bill, that there is a clear case for them to be considered and examined in detail by a Select Committee. While we take note of the proposals and suggestions made by the hon. Member for Dudley and his hon. Friends, I cannot think that it should be made the responsibility of the Transport Commission to deal with major matters of general policy, as the hon. Gentleman would seek to have it do. Having had the opportunity of ventilating his point of view, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should not press the matter any further tonight. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will now be read a Second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) wish to move his Instruction?

Mr. J. Wells: I do not wish to move my Instruction, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because the assurance that my hon. Friend has given that, not only the Minister's point of view, but the point of view of my hon. Friends and myself will be fully put before the Select Committee, meets the requirements of the case. We are very grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance and for his kind attention to all our inland waterway problems over 15 hours yesterday and today.

Orders of the Day — SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL

Postponed proceeding on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee), resumed.

New Clause.—(CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN.)

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Peel.]

Debate to be resumed this day.

Orders of the Day — WELFARE FOODS (CHARGES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

1.14 a.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: When I was 17 I worked for a short time on a steam trawler based on Fleetwood and fishing in the far north, off the Faroe Islands. Every fish that was caught was ripped open, and the liver was torn out and used for the making of cod liver oil. The proceeds were part of the crew's "perks", which supplemented their very meagre wages. That was the producing end; this evening we are dealing with the receiving end.
During one of the toughest winters we have known for many years, two out of every three mothers who were taking cod liver oil, A and D vitamin tablets and orange juice have stopped taking them. Why is that? The reason is that in one of the most miserable cuts in the social services since before the war the Government have imposed charges for them. Cod liver oil, which was formerly free, now costs 1s. a bottle. A and D tablets, which were also formerly free, now cost 6d., a packet, and orange juice, previously 5d. a bottle, now costs 1s. 6d. a bottle.
For orange juice alone—and this is the real stuff, not the valueless orange drink one gets from the milk man—a mother with three children under the age of 5 years now has to spend 4s. 6d. for a week's supply, compared with 1s. 3d. It is not generally realised that the unborn child's first tooth buds start forming when the mother is only six weeks pregnant, so that even from that early age diet has a marked effect on the baby. A bottle of orange juice, it is worth noting, contains as much vitamin C as seven oranges.
There are many homes in Britain today where every penny counts, and where people really do go short of food—particularly of fruit and green vegetables. It is precisely those families whose health is being hit by these skinflint charges. For a mother with only a small wage or a pension coming into the house the extra cost has stopped these welfare foods, so that the very people who most need these supplements

to their diet are now least likely to get them.
There is no doubt about the effect since the Minister clapped on the charges on 1st June. Questions from this side of the House have extracted the following figures from the Minister. I come from Lancashire, and we are not blessed with too much sunshine. Because of our climate, these vitamin foods are even more vital than they are, possibly, in the South. In Lancashire, where the number of bottles of orange juice taken in the last quarter of 1960 was 176,000, the number had fallen to 63,000 in the last quarter of 1961. In the same period, the take-up of cod liver oil had dropped from 29,000 bottles to 9,000 bottles. The number of packets of vitamin tablets went down from 23,000 to 10,000.
For the country as a whole, comparing the last quarters of those two years we find that orange juice consumption went down by 61 per cent.; cod liver oil by 64 per cent., and vitamin tablets by 48 per cent. There has been an outcry throughout the country from the men who know—the medical officers of health. Here is a letter I have received from the Medical Officer of Health for Salford, Dr. J. L. Burn. He writes:
The Ministry have urged that health visitors educate the mothers on the value of orange juice. Education is a long-term process—we need this—but we need much more immediate action to increase the uptake of the wonderful Welfare foods now and in the immediate future. Price is a governing factor.
Rose Hip Syrups are sugary and therefore harmful as regards dental health and the dangers of obesity. They are attractive and easily prepared, in some ways, unfortunately. I fear that the first-class foods like orange juice will be 'squeezed' out to the detriment of the health of the babies.
Another serious and unsuspected effect which I have not heard previously referred to is that because the welfare foods are no longer freely available, fewer mothers are attending the postnatal clinics for advice. During the 1950s two authoritative inquiries were held into the reasons why mothers attended clinics. These were conducted by Dr. George, of the Public Health Department of Birmingham, and Dr. Chalk, Medical Officer of Health for Camberwell. In both cases it was revealed that a considerable proportion of the mothers replied that they went to


the clinics for the welfare foods and, of course, received advice at the same time.
The Ministry of Health's Report for 1959 stated:
Clinic staffs will still have an important rôle to play in advising mothers, not only about infants in the first year of life, but also about the developing child from one to five years. Mothers should be encouraged to bring these pre-school children to the clinic regularly.
Despite the higher birth rate, there has been a decrease between 1959 and 1960 of 19 per cent. in the number attending post-natal clinics in London. In Edinburgh, eight of the 37 distributing centres have been shut down since September. This further discourages mothers from attending the clinics, particularly if they have to travel five or six miles and spend money on bus and train fares.
Ironically, having cut the consumption of welfare foods in this disastrous way, the Minister is now spending large sums of money on posters and circulars to local authorities asking them to publicise Che value of these foods. If these foods are not valuable, why spend money advertising them? In any case, the figures show that the publicity has failed. And all this is to save a miserable £1½ million a year. How mean can the Government get?
Does the Minister think that people drink cod liver oil for fun? If he does, he must have a very odd sense of humour. They take it, of course, because they need it. I maintain that the Minister of Health is pandering to the backwoodsmen of the Conservative Party who think that these foods are far too good for the working class. This imposition is in keeping with the 2s. per item prescription charge of last April and it shows that the Government are slaughtering the welfare services.
When the extra charge was imposed last April the Opposition demanded that, if a fall in demand resulted, the matter would be reconsidered. The Parliamentary Secretary, on 19th April, gave a clear promise that, while no such fall was likely, if it did occur the matter would be looked into. The worst has happened. The two-thirds reduction is admitted by the Government. On 26th February, the Minister, replying to a Question, said:

There is no evidence at all that any price is being paid in terms of health."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 933.]
That was quite a different point and the right hon. Gentleman was obviously dodging the question. By their promise to reconsider the charges it was clearly understood that that reconsideration would be carried out with a view to removing them. This the Minister is refusing to do. It is the most blatant breach of a promise I have seen since I came to the House.
The Minister does not really know whether the necessary vitamins are being obtained because it will be some time before the signs become evident. On another occasion the right hon. Gentleman said that the problem was one of individual and particular families. How does he know that these families are not among those who are no longer receiving the welfare foods? There are vast undistributed stocks of these foods. At 31st December last there were 2,760 tons of bulk concentrated orange juice, 1,823,000 bottles of orange juice, 481,000 bottles of cod liver oil and 357,000 packets of vitamin tablets. If the charges were taken off, they would soon be distributed.
I should like to make an additional proposal. Whilst these foods are primarily intended for mothers and children, nevertheless they would also benefit old-age pensioners. In 1957, a high-powered committee, including experts in nutrition, medicine and allied sciences and headed by Lord Cohen, published a report which recommended that the scheme should be continued. I am urging that the Minister should listen to their advice.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has expressed anxieties which are widely felt on this side of the House and probably amongst hon. Members opposite, too. The experience of the fall in take-up of these vitamin supplements precisely reflects what we forecast a year ago when the changes in price were made by the Minister,
We cannot understand the apparent complacency of the Minister and of the Parliamentary Secretary in the face of


these severe falls. Their attitude is comprehensible only on the assumption that these vitamin supplements are either worthless or unnecessary, but that is not what the Minister says. Indeed, not only did the hon. Lady, when we debated the Order making these changes a year ago, go out of her way to say how valuable they were and what a contribution they had made to child health, but, as my hon. Friend has said, the Ministry is embarking on a publicity campaign to stimulate the consumption of orange juice and cod liver oil.
It is not only the very poor to whom my hon. Friend referred whose children are not getting these supplements. No doubt, the hon. Lady will say that there are arrangements with the National Assistance Board which can take care of that. I am equally, if not more, concerned about the children of the mothers who are not, perhaps, on National Assistance level, but who are not very intelligent mothers, who do not feed their children intelligently, who perhaps are rather feckless or careless. These are the people whose children need these vitamin boosts and those are exactly the mothers who will be deterred by price increases of the order that were introduced.
The Minister says that he has no evidence that children are not getting adequate vitamin intake. I want to know what evidence he has that they are, because in the absence of evidence of that kind, I believe that the time has come for the hon. Lady to reconsider the position and to restore the subsidy.

1.28 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I am glad of the opportunity which this debate gives of discussing the changes that were made in the welfare food services last year. During the debate on 19th April, as the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has reminded us, I said that I should be surprised if changes occurred in the take-up of the welfare foods. The position was that, on the one hand, the changes might be expected to reduce demand, but that, on the other, the rationing of quantities ceased with the changes except for free supplies and restrictions to particular beneficiaries were lifted at the same time. For instance, orange juice

was extended to nursing mothers and to children up to the age of 5—for which there had been some demand, as hon. Members know—and extended to handicapped children.
It was difficult to quantify those changes, but welfare supplements at cost price represented good value and 1 expected that mothers would seek the best value for their money, as I myself had wished to do. The extent of the rise or fall in demand could not be known in advance, but I promised that the Government would consider the matter again should there be any fall in uptake. Such a fall has occurred and has been maintained, and sales remain well below their previous level. My right hon. Friend has. therefore, reviewed the position and is keeping it under review.
Two things need to be borne in mind when we discuss this subject. First, there is the question whether welfare supplements should be subsidised, not whether they should be available. We are continuing to provide them, and they are still a cheap source of vitamins. Secondly, there is the importance of health in mothers and young children. and, therefore, their vitamin intake from all sources, not only the intake of welfare foods.
The welfare food service was introduced in war time when diet generally was poor. Even at that time, the service was regarded as an insurance, and it was recognised that it might possibly be an over-insurance. Charges were made for the foods: orange juice was 5d. and cod liver oil and vitamin tablets were 10d. The service continued when the war ended, and it was then that cod liver oil and vitamin tablets were provided free.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out in the debate on this subject on 13th February, it has never been the case that all the welfare foods which could have been taken up have been taken up, neither when a charge was made for all of them nor when cold liver oil and vitamin tablets were free. We must not mislead ourselves by thinking that welfare foods alone have been responsible for the disappearance of vitamin deficiency diseases during the last twenty years.
In I960, these were the figures: of the possible beneficiaries, 39 per cent. took


up the orange juice available; 8 per cent. took up the cod liver oil; and 31 per cent. took up the vitamin A and D tablets. It is important to bear these matters in mind, when considering the welfare food supplements, to keep the subject in perspective.
Now, when the picture has changed so considerably since wartime and the immediate post-war years, we must recognise that in this country a wholesome and varied diet is very readily available, and that most mothers have the means to buy it.
I am far from suggesting that welfare foods are valueless. I have already said that they are good value for money, and they make a valuable contribution to diet. We continue to provide them. But we should try to see clearly the part they have played in the past and treat the welfare foods scheme not as something sacrosanct in its every detail but as something to be reviewed and adapted to present-day needs and requirements.
The hon. Member for Salford, East said that changes in the scheme had meant a reduction in attendances at the clinics. I do not know where he obtained his figures, but I have made inquiries and found that the figures for 1961 are not yet available. They are expected shortly and will, of course, be included in the Annual Report of my Department. I have been given the figures for the London County Council for the September quarter of 1961, which show that attendances of children of all ages from 0 to 5 were up.
In fact, the figures were higher in every age group. I am told that the figures for the December quarter are much the same. I imagine that the figures for the London County Council would be fairly representative of what is happening in the country generally. Certainly, the population covered by the London County Council must be representative of every kind of mother in whom we are interested in this context.
As I have said, what matters is the health of mothers and children and, therefore, in this context, their vitamin intake. There is no evidence that the health of mothers and children is suffering. We are keeping careful watch on the indices which could reflect any

deterioration in their health, and we are taking other steps to keep ourselves informed on the subject.
So far as vitamin intakes are concerned, not only must we take into account the more varied diet available, but we must also take into account the fact that there are plenty of sources of supplementary vitamins which are within the means of the vast majority of mothers. The Cohen Committee saw no need for the special provision of vitamin A beyond including it with vitamin D where this could conveniently be done.
In 1960, my Department collected data with the aid of health visitors—and, again, we all agree that health visitors are probably best placed to keep us informed on these subjects. The data made it clear that young children were obtaining vitamin D from a wide range of preparations and food other than cod liver oil, which played a minor part only in the total intake. The survey showed that the intake of this vitamin was on average well above nutritional requirements.
Data such as that obtained on vitamin D are not available for intakes of vitamin C. but there are indications that increasing use has been made of sources other than welfare orange juice for some time, and fresh oranges are easy to get. There is, therefore, no cause for anxiety generally.
So long as mothers are kept aware of the importance of a varied diet and the need of young children for extra vitamins, there is no reason to suppose that most will not continue to find suitable sources of vitamins available and continue to use them wisely and effectively. This calls for a carefully directed and sustained effort in health education, and I should like to return to this subject in a moment.
This is not to say that there is no problem. We recognise that there is a problem, but it is not one to which the reintroduction of the indiscriminate subsidy which was abolished last year provides the right answer. It is the problem of those—relatively few—mothers who cannot afford to get the vitamins which they and their children need even at the low prices charged in the Welfare Foods Scheme, and those individual mothers who might not be sufficiently reached by general measures of health


education and publicity. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred to the "feckless and the careless" and to "not very intelligent mothers". I think that that is a little sweeping. I prefer my own expression for mothers who have not the capacity to plan and to provide adequately. I agree that this is a problem.
First, we have had very much in mind the position of those who cannot afford the welfare foods. Information obtained for the Sub-Committee on Welfare Foods—the Cohen Committee—which reported in 1957, suggested that at that time the uptake of welfare foods—not only orange juice, which cost 5d. a bottle, but also cod liver oil and vitamin A and D tablets which were free—was lowest among people in the lowest income groups. We have, therefore, continued the provisions which enable people on National Assistance, and those to whom payment would mean hardship by National Assistance standards, to get the foods free with tokens issued by the National Assistance Board.
We have done more than this. With the finding of the Cohen Committee in mind, we wanted not merely to maintain but to increase the use made by these people of the service. We therefore gave fresh publicity to the facilities for getting the food free. The National Assistance Board, for its part, simplified the procedure for issuing tokens. The signs are that we are succeeding in this important object.
Free supplies of orange juice have been taken in greater quantity since 1st June last year than were taken up previously. Free issues of orange juice were 23,170 bottles in the September, 1960, quarter and 109,070 bottles in the September, 1961, quarter. The figures for the December quarters were 22,345 bottles in 1960 and 97,193 bottles in 1961.
Comparisons cannot be made for cod liver oil and vitamin tablets because these were free to everyone before 1st June, 1961, but the obvious conclusion is that the neediest people are today making fuller use of all these facilities than they were a year ago. For those who can afford a varied diet and adequate vitamin supplements I have said that what is needed is that they should

be constantly reminded of the importance of these in good nutrition, and, of course, of the availability of a range of supplements in the Government's welfare foods scheme.
Advice and information on this is an integral part of health education material that we are constantly putting out. This publicity is not costly. I cannot put a figure on it, but I think that when I illustrate publicity to the hon. Gentleman he will realise that I am justified in saying that it is not expensive. What is important is that it is directed at those concerned, the mothers.
Leaflets encouraging the use of vitamin supplements and drawing attention to the welfare foods service are sent out with milk token books issued to expectant mothers and children. These leaflets have also been issued to appropriate voluntary organisations and hospital boards, executive councils and local health authorities for distribution to doctors, midwives, nurses and others concerned with the care of mothers and young children. Posters and coloured leaflets have been provided for display in clinics, distribution centres and other suitable places by local health authorities. Welfare foods have been mentioned in the health advice notes sent to magazines, the Press and broadcasting authorities and in the official announcements on the radio.
I should not like the House to infer from the fall in uptake of the Government's welfare foods that this publicity has proved and is proving ineffective. It is through this publicity that we have sought to advertise more widely and thoroughly the arrangements that are made for people in need to get supplies free of charge, and I have indicated the very satisfactory response there has been to our efforts in this direction. There is no reason to suppose that our publicity has been any less successful in its other object—to keep mothers aware, as one aspect of their health education generally, of the value of vitamin supplements, whether these are obtained through the Government's scheme or from other sources.
There remains the second group, the problem of those mothers who might not be sufficiently reached by publicity of this sort, however carefully it is directed. For these an individual approach is by


far the most effective means of health education, and it is one of the great merits of the National Health Service that this kind of approach is by no means beyond its resources. Indeed, it is probably true to say that the most important form of publicity in the matter of nutritional needs is the advice that mothers receive from doctors, midwives and health visitors as part of the care they give to the mother and her child before and after the baby is born.
The health visitor calls personally at almost every home in which there is a young child. She can see where health education on diet and the use of vitamins is particularly required. The health visitor and the midwife and the family or hospital doctor can give advice in a form understandable to the mother, with an authority she will respect.
To sum up, the important thing is the health of mothers and children, and, therefore, vitamin intakes generally. There is no evidence that health is suffering or that vitamin intakes are inadequate.

Other sources of the vitamins are available besides the Government's welfare foods service. We are, nevertheless, aware that there is a real health problem in this field, and this is being tackled not by a general subsidy but by continuous, carefully directed publicity as a part of health education generally, and by a concentration of additional effort and resources in those particular areas where there is special need.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Lady said that her right hon. Friend is keeping the situation under review. Does that mean that if the figures remain at their present low level for, say, another six months, the charges will be reviewed?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. It means what I said, that we will continue to watch the nutriment obtained by mothers and babies.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock.